Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/330th Bombardment Group

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. 69.212.65.45 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

330th Bombardment Group

This article requires an encyclopedic rewrite. Elm-39 - T/C 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. The article needs a lot of work to get it to wikipedia standards, but deleting an article because it needs to be rewritten to make it an encyclopedic article is not a reason to delete. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I don't know a lot about the subject area, but it looks like this group is the same as the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing. If so would a merge/redirect be the right way to go?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like editors with more knowledge on these groups then myself think a stand alone article is the way to go. Looks like this can be all handled editorialy. So for the record Keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the same thing, yes the lineage of the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing includes the 330th Bombardment Group. ~~Applicable information should be merged there and then this redirected.~~ A new name 2008 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the amount relevant information in this article, it would overwhelm the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing article. A summary of the information should be left there and this should be made the main article. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing is a direct descendant. 65 years later!--B29bomber (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge, per comments above. Either way, though, I'm against the AFD nomination. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without Merge: for the same reason we have United States Army Air Service, United States Army Air Corps, United States Army Air Forces and United States Air Force as separate articles. The USAAS was the predecessor of USAAC, .. USAAF -> USAF and each was significant on its own. Articles needing improvement is not equal to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merge - and since when have we gone AFD'ing notable articles because they need clean-up? There is a policy describing this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and I completely endorse the previous comment.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup help, but I can see the article has a place here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Seeing as the page had been deleted before, it seemed that it probably wouldn't be edited by others, and that further appearances of it would be vandalism. So, I felt that it was necessary to delete it yet again. Now that I see consensus has changed, I purport to Keep the article, and close this discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Elm-39 - T/C 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it's a mess, but seriously. There's an editor who has been documenting US Air Force bombardment groups from WWII, patches and everything, from freely available historic MIL docs... I don't think they're the same person because the ones I've seen were very well done. I'll see if I can find him/her and see if they're interested in taking this on. §FreeRangeFrog 18:44, 5 February 2009 (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.