Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/146th Air Support Operations Squadron

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. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

146th Air Support Operations Squadron[edit]

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

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

It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources exist. [1][2][3][4][5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are really independent of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkeye7, though this page does need some cleanup Claire 26 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to 137th Special Operations Wing is cheap and keeps the entire page history intact. We don't conclude keep on an article which has no reliable independent sourcing, no matter how many bolded keep assertions are made. I assert redirect to the parent unit's page until direct detailing in multiple and diverse reliable sources is presented and inserted. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major unit with plenty of sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Major unit? Eight aircraft? What sources do you have that this is a major unit. Assertions are not proof. At the risk of being accused of !voting twice, there are zero sources applied to the page, and none of the links provided by worthy Hawkeye7 meet independence of the subject. Even a wp:sportsperson requires at least a single source which directly details. Here we have none, nothing, nada. This discussion cannot be closed as keep without sourcing which meets RS. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be applied to the page; it is sufficient that they exist. I have supplied a short list of web sites (eg [6]) referencing the subject and the claim that they are not wikipedia:Independent sources is the only assertion without proof here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the presented sources meets independence because (as you are fully aware), each is an official US military source. "Official United States Air Force Website" on the bottom of each of these af.mil sources makes them connected. ok.ng.mil is another connected source. afspecialwarfare.com is a third. www.dvidshub.net actually says it's a US Department of Defense website. The burden is on those asserting keep who must demonstrate such sources exist, User:Hawkeye7. I'm only asking for IRS; that's policy. I don't dispute the unit is verified; I merely hold to standards of inclusion to which the community has agreed. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "major unit" in British military terminology (I'm British) is a designation for a battalion-sized unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel. In other words, one covered by WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that definition; I'm often woefully underinformed, which why I try to rely on policy, guideline, and inline citation. I was confused (by what I thought of your use of a superlative). Every editor in this discussion is a more accomplished content creator than I am, but nobody has actually applied these connected sources to the pagespace. For my part I'm only on this page as a passing editor looking to close a triple relist; during my reading I developed an opinion. I wasn't going to supervote but I also wasn't going along when I disagreed in principle. I'm not going to force this issue further. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've added a few independent reliable sources [7], [8], [9] to help pass the the GNG guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:52, 15 May 2024 (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.