Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinook Display Team

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Paying particular attention to those who assessed the topic after the page's significant expansion (all arguing for a "keep" outcome), there is a consensus that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Display Team[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Chinook Display Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable single aircraft display team - most air forces have single aircraft disoplay teams and the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated every year (for at least 40 years) and of all the many single aircraft displays it is very rare to be of any note and previous teams have been deleted before for not being notable for inclusion MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have three online meetings this afternoon and I'm already late for the UK Wikimeet. See WP:CHOICE, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." And now I was just interrupted by someone at the door chasing the census return. No peace for the wicked... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well that is what I was thinking, since you found more refs you should be fixing the article to the point where it passes WP:GNG, instead of expecting other editors to do the work. As it stands, the article does not pass GNG, so with an indication there may be refs out there, unless it gets fixed so it does, I would support sending it to drafts for more work, since it is not ready for mainspace right now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NEXIST which explains that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that was exactly my point. If this book does make the subject notable enough to pass GNG, but is not currently used as a ref in the article, then the article should be kept, but moved to "drafts" until the article is updated to incorporate the ref. I would update the article myself, but I don't have the book, so can't tell you what in it might be of use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not address the nominator's argument, which is that the team should be deleted because it only has a single aircraft. The fact that it's an official display team of the RAF, has been covered by the BBC and had a book written about it impresses the nominator not at all. He still doesn't like it. Me, I'm fine with it, have supported my position by reference to multiple policies and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, I am not trying to get you to change your !vote. In fact I think we both agree that this book ref may indeed show that the subject is notable, but that, as it stands, the article is not sufficiently well-referenced to stay in mainspace. I haven't decided which way I will !vote yet, this discussion is all part of my examination of the issues. If the article does get deleted as "not worthy of an article" then further consideration is moot. If it is moved to drafts as "possibly notable, but not ready for mainspace", then that would seem a sensible outcome based on what we have right now. If is is just "kept as-is", then further action will be required, either adding some non-primary refs or moving it to drafts for more work. Right now I could be easily swayed towards "keep", if someone can add some serious refs, but that hasn't happened yet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, you really should read the policies that Andrew cited. What you are suggesting is simply not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The guidelines are very clear that we are not to delete articles simply based on their current state or because known existing sources have not been added yet. The existence of references is what determines notability, even if they have not yet been added to the article. You are welcome to vote however you wish, but please be sure to base your voted on what Wikipedia guidelines actually advise. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you read what I wrote. I am not supporting deleting the article at this point in time, I have suggested that if it only has primary refs then it should be moved to drafts or if third party refs are added it should be kept. What I have suggested is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You can also note that the article now contains one third-party ref from the BBC. It is a bit of a weak ref, though, as it is just a video report and contains some obvious inaccuracies, but it is a start. Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So no more noteworthy really then all the other tens of single aircraft display aircraft flown for many years, the RAF has at least three or four official teams every year that can be just as impressive. If you think the book is really noteworthy then perhaps that should be the subject of an article. 12:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)MilborneOne (talk)
As a general rule, we usually advise people against using "but there's an article on this other subject" as an argument for Keep. The converse is probably true as well, the lack of articles for other display teams is not an argument for Delete. It may be that no one has bothered to create those pages. It could be that this display team has more coverage than other display teams. The question is, do we have sufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RIAT is the world's largest military air show, but what does that have to do with notability of this display team? Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, they participated at the most famous military air show. The coverage they get confirms notability. Google news search for their official name, Royal Air Force Aerobatic, shows coverage of them around the world wherever they will be ad, and about their red arrow displays and other things they do. Dream Focus 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the Red Arrows are a separate display team (they fly the BAE Hawk, if I remember correctly). Still, the fact that this team flies at RIAT and other air shows alongside famous teams like the Red Arrows should mean that there's some good coverage in various reliable sources, which is the important thing. Hyperion35 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one questions the notability of RIAT. The fact that the Chinook Display Team performs at RIAT is only relevant if there is significant coverage of it. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Importance and notability are crystal clear. There is no case whatsoever for deleting this article. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has been significantly expanded since the nom. Has plenty of SIGCOV in RS to meet WP:GNG. All the 'keep' !votes above make additional good arguments as well. Also, as the OP has pointed out; "the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated [display teams] every year (for at least 40 years)", so it certainly seems like a worthy article to have. - wolf 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinook_Display_Team&oldid=1016222954"