Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Hawk Air Society
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 merge to Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps with this title redirecting to that one. Notability is extremely borderline, and this topic can easily be covered in the main article. If further notability for this organization is demonstrated in the future, this article can always be recreated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kitty Hawk Air Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I see no notability for this outside of the umbrella of the other organization. It's possible that a merge can be done, but I don't see it as highly necessary. Metros (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No refs. Until then, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. P.B. Pilhet 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. While the above seems to disagree, there are sources available that assert notability (you need a subscription to view the full text of the last two to find relevant sections). However, they don't amount to much, and its questionable as to whether an article can be written using only those and the trivial print mentions available. Celarnor Talk to me 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to AFJROTC, as per precedents about individual cadet units and programmes. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge seconded. KHAS is notable, but not in its own right. As part of the AFJROTC program, it should be included in the appropriate page. Izuko (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable, needs to be referenced. --Oldak Quill 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
