Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badges of the Civil Air Patrol

Badges of the Civil Air Patrol

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Badges of the Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article consists predominantly of images that are copyright violations. Purport to have been taken by airmen or employees of USAF but most likely were taken by volunteers or employees of the not-for-profit private Civil Air Patrol. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — As of June 24, 2016, Civil Air Patrol falls under ADCON and OPCON of 1st Air Force, Air Combat Command, United States Air Force. Images were created by Civil Air Patrol and source is cited on article.Leonardocognoscenti(talk) 20:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• Leonardocognoscenti;s statement is vague and irrelevant. CAP is a not-for-profit corporation chartered by Congress. The charter is codified at 36 USC Ch. 403: CIVIL AIR PATROL. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Leonardocognoscenti's statement is explicit, current, and qualified as a Lieutenant in the Civil Air Patrol. Leonardocognoscenti(talk) 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Merge: I will agree that some limited merge is an option per RoySmith . A single primary source pdf file does not advance notability. This is currently presented as an un-assessed list-class article. Although I am a big supporter of the Civil Air Patrol there is just not much here as presented. Maybe the creator would consider expanding Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol#Badges or having the article placed in user-space to hopefully find more sources and reorganize. Otr500 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Civil Air Patrol Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. I don't see any independent notability (referenced to a single primary source) but no reason this list couldn't be included in the parent article. Perhaps a limited merge in view of WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping this if somebody could find some WP:SECONDARY sources which show that the group or set is notable, as per WP:LISTN. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comments: RoySmith thanks for adding the optional merge. Due to the sometimes sort of unfair considerations of closings a delete, keep, and merge would likely have resulted in a no consensus. This is not an actual fault of a closer but the way policies and guidelines are current interpreted. The reality that anything other than a "keep", especially considering ATD, still means an article is not presumed to warrant stand alone status specifically if there are notability issues. To me this would clearly indicate a merge and delete would qualify for an ATD of merge, but that is not usually how it is perceived. Maybe we can get more closing AFDs to consider this? There are some that consider merging not appropriate for AFD. To me that does not follow the deletion policy: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Maybe merge as an understood alternative would be something to consider at the policy page? -- Otr500 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. The page fails WP:GNG and, therefore, a standalone page is not justified. However, a merge would enhance the target article and looks a good, constructive solution. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)