Talk:352d Tactical Fighter Squadron

Merger
I propose merging the 652d Bombardment Squadron. Squadrons have been merged,and 652d article remains a stub. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my arguments here: --Kkmurray (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which are basically WP:I just don't like it. Clearly, the current article on the 652d falls under WP:FAILN.  There is no evidence of the unit's notability in the article, and if unsupported matter was deleted the article would evaporate. The article is little bigger than the WP:SIZERULE that would call for its merger on the basis of size alone not only does WP:MILMOS call for the merger, but the merger shows the relationship between the units, which separate stubs do not per WP:NOPAGE.  Your comments on the the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron are inappropriate here -- there is no demonstrated independent notability as in the example of the 30th Bombardment Squadron and the United States Air Force Thunderbirds.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is the application of WP:MILMOS to merges based on lineage. I don’t think that there is consensus on this issue (e.g. here and ) and I don’t think that it is appropriate to continue these merges lacking a consensus. The way forward is to establish a broad consensus regarding these kinds of merges and clearly delineate it in WP:MILMOS so that articles can be developed within a consensus framework based on some reasonable application of era and lineage.  --Kkmurray (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A change of mind, I oppose the merge as it would detract from coverage of US military units--Petebutt (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)