Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to 32nd Aviation Division. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Yugoslavia. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes WP:MILUNIT Jack4576 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As another editor has pointed out, WP:MILUNIT is merely an essay based on some WikiProject discussions. GNG is controlling here, and sufficient coverage hasn’t been demonstrated so far. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * According to the article, the regiment only existed for a few months after the end of WW2. Only source cited seems to be a comprehensive survey of the Yugoslav Air Force. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which part of this requirement do you think is not met? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Significant coverage” RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the airframes used, there is bound to be coverage in books on those airframes as well as Yugoslavia sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First we’d have to locate said coverage. Why would such a source cover the topic beyond a brief mention like “The Hurricanes were briefly operated by the 1st Fighter Regiment” though? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment leaning "not keep" on this one. Does anyone know of a good merge candidate? -Ljleppan (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just note myself down as delete, as nobody seems to have produced further sourcing: I'm not at all convinced that a single source is enough for a GNG pass. While I'd prefer to merge, I don't know of a good target. Please ping me if further sourcing or a good merge target is identified. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ljleppan Another editor suggested 32nd Aviation Division RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm WP:AGF on it being a proper target, but merge to that sounds fine. Ljleppan (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to 32nd Aviation Division. It would be a pity (and completely self-defeating for an encyclopaedia) if the information was lost. It does pass WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with a merge. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Merge to 32nd Aviation Division.  // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Organization-wise, I would prefer keep, but if the deck is stacked towards deleting, then merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division (per Necrothesp) and keep categories and the interwiki connection on the redirect page. There is little prospect to much greater expansion for this 3-months lasting military unit. Also, a navbox wouldn't be a bad idea. –Vipz (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division per above. Note that WP:MILUNIT is an essay, not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and thus has no relevance in AfD's. Alvaldi (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an essay formulated after considerable discussion by people who know what they're talking about! It has also generally been held to be consensus at AfDs that 'major units' are notable. So yes, it does have relevance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MILUNIT is an essay/advice by a WikiProject, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus passing or failing it has no relevance in AfD's. WP:GNG is the controlling guideline here. Note that any consensus created by a WikiProject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not overwrite any formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. AryKun (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division as above. I'm aware WP:MILUNIT is an essay, but even though this article is brief, it still deserves to be remembered in some way. Equine-man (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.