Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army One


 * 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   keep. Discussion about merging the article can be provided elsewhere, including its talk page using proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Army One

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost completely unsourced; also a permastub. Needs to be deleted, or merged with Vehicles of the President of the United States. Nominating the following additional pages under the same rationale:


 * Coast Guard One (callsign has never been used, only Coast Guard Two has)
 * Navy One

With the latter two, I'm also concerned about WP:UNDUE, as the bulk of those two articles concern just three flights made. p b  p  23:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Navy One & Army One, both have received significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Failing that I would urge merge & redirect to Vehicles of the President of the United States as suggested in the nomination. Coast Guard One has never existed, however, Coast Guard Two has, perhaps it is too soon per WP:NOTCRYSTAL? Therefore Coast Guard One should be renamed Coast Guard Two or at worse merge into an article such as Vehicles of the Vice President of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close - this AfD seems rather WP:POINTy. See the discussion here. Also: I'm not sure how WP:UNDUE applies, and as for "permastub", see WP:NOEFFORT, WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Undue applies because Navy and Coast Guard One/Two have only been used for a few flights that weren't terribly significant in the grand scheme of things. "Walter Mondale used Navy One to go to a hockey game."  Unencylopedic.  If we gave the same treatment to every rally, campaign event, or foreign trip that AF1, AF2, or Marine One was used on, those articles would be hundreds of kilobytes.  Call it what you will: undue, unencyclopedic, laundry list.  It doesn't belong; heck, I'm probably going to go and delete it right now.  I must also remind you of WP:BURDEN...if I ask for additional sourcing in an AfD, and you can't provide any, the article should be deleted.  The additional sourcing is where, exactly?  Furthermore, please provide evidence that this is WP:POINTy, rather than simply enforcing a number of long-standing policies.  That discussion you cite was done without either notifying me or considering relevant policy.  Also, note the argument that Coast Guard One has never been used and Coast Guard Two has only been used once; that's WP:CRYSTALBALL.  p  b  p  01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's another important policy to consider here and that is WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the President rode in a plane a few times doesn't mean that callsign needs its own article, anymore than we don't have articles on all the places George Washington slept at or the horses he rode  p  b  p  02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:Aircraft Project discussion: Bushranger mentioned a discussion there. There are two fatal flaws in the discussion:
 * The discussion mostly concerned reinforcing a decision made by the project to have separate articles so that. Nowhere did assess the merits of notability guidelines, permastub, not-inherited, crystal, burden etc.
 * WikiProjects aren't community. Naturally, a project concerned with aircraft would be more disposed to keeping shitty permastubs than the community as a whole.  This is a community noticeboard  p  b  p  02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Vehicles of the President of the United States. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all three into a new article Callsigns of the President of the United States, callsigns are not vehicles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Army One and Navy One at least, as both pass GNG, Navy One in particular receiving wide-seapd coverage in media. Possibly re-create Aircraft of the President of the United States as an alternative to merging these articles to the already-cluttered Transportation of the President of the United States article (formerly Vehicles of the President of the United States. I'm not sure why we are at AFD when a Merge discision would have sufficed, and is that appearent intent of the AFD, and thus I agree with BR that this nom is WP:POINTy. Also, we have no guidelines against "permastubs", whatever the heck that actually means! (See WP:NOEFFORT, WP:TOOLITTLE.) Please keep in mind that this user merged the three articles back in Sept 2012 without any prior discussion on those articles' talk pages, with no notification of the regular editors involved in editing those pages, nor did he notify the project or any pf the editors who participated in the post-merge discussions at Talk:Army One of this AFD. - BilCat (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject had been notified of this AfD by another editor, and nominators are under no obligation to notify WikiProjects or editors other than the auther. And the September 2012 merger, it was acceptable as a BOLD action.  As for the claim that Army One and Navy One pass GNG, that is questionable.  Notability is determined by reliable sources; those articles are sorely lacking in those.  Notability is also not inherited; I would question whether Army One and Navy One are independently notable of the President/VP and/or their other vehicles.  p  b  p  22:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember that sources are not required to be in the article; only that they exist, not necessarily online. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Navy One into 2003 Mission Accomplished speech; Merge Army One into Marine One unless some evidence of operational differences can be found. I don't know the details of what lead to this AfD &mdash; appears some trouble with an earlier process &mdash; but since I don't know yet, hopefully this is a fresh look:
 * For Navy One: It seems to me that this single flight is simply one aspect of a single-time event we already have an article about, and any coverage it has received is tied into that subject (the 2003 Mission Accomplished speech). If another Navy One flight occurred later, maybe that would change things.
 * As for Army One: I'm not sure the concept (presidential helicopter flight with a custom callsign) is separate from Marine One, since they alternated in some fashion at one point; but if it's likely that an article can be fleshed out about what aspects of Army One flights were different than Marine One, then Army One should be kept. If, however, presidential helicopter flights happened to just be split between Army One and Marine One, with no major operational difference than different personnel using a different callsign just for organizational reasons, I'm not sure that's enough to justify a separate article for a subject that was effectively subsumed by another subject long ago: the subject is presidential helicopter flights or or the presidential helicopters, and which callsign was used from day to day is not two separate subjects, and the title "Marine One" makes sense because that's the surviving name now.  (Army One was used as a callsign for 19 years, yet it's been 36 years since Marine One has been the sole callsign used by these kinds of flights.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2013 (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.