Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 1 Combat Logistics Squadron RAAF

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 redirect to No. 395 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF. BigDom talk 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 Combat Logistics Squadron RAAF[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No edits except a table since several years Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 395 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF unless the article is developed during this AfD. It's probably possible to write an article on this unit (most RAAF ground squadrons have received reasonable coverage), but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested in developing the article on this unit. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D. IMO this unit would likely be notable under WP:MILMOS/N, however given the lack of content it should probably be redirected to a parent article (without prejudice for later re-creation if additional material can be found which is supported by reliable sources). Anotherclown (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nick-D. Normally, I wouldn't agree to such a course of action, but given that there is literally no content at all, I have to agree with his rationale. Closing admin should clearly note that there is no prejudice to future recreation of the article with something more than an infobox, and that this descision is not made based on notability or any other argument that the subject isn't worthy of an article, but on the abhorrent state it is currently in. bahamut0013^words _deeds
Redirect: I agree with Nick's rationale. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2011 (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.