Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranks of the Australian Air Force Cadets

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 Australian Air Force Cadets. Sandstein 19:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks of the Australian Air Force Cadets

[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)

This does not need to be on Wikipedia. Ranks don't differ from Australian Defence Force apart from addition to the name of each rank which is not notable outside the organisation and associated entities, and citations are not publicly available. Tytrox (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is no policy-based rationale in the nomination. Arguing "does not need to be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale; no article needs to be here. I have no idea what to make of the claim that they "don't differ from Australian Defence Force" significantly. Both sets of insignia are pretty similar to RAF insignia so on that basis we should be looking to delete Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force as well. Besides, the claim does not hold up – in the Cadets there is a need for the insignia to distinguish between cadets and instructors and officer cadets and establishment officers. This is unique to the Cadets. Finally, the nominator claims that the "citations are not publicly available". If by this it is meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information on cadet signia is easily found online, for instance here. SpinningSpark 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point that my first argument was not solid. The information is already available at Australian Defence Force Cadets (which I deleted but have since restored due to being trigger-happy in retrospect (which could then consider this article obsolete)).Tytrox (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Australian Air Force Cadets which is not even vaguely large enough to justify the split-out. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that solution. I also note that the nominator caused the problem by deleting the information from that article. SpinningSpark 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Otherwise, Merge into Australian Air Force Cadets. -The Gnome (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Australian Air Force Cadets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian Air Force Cadets --Baerentp (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others Wolfson5 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now that an acceptable resolution is possible Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2018 (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.