Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Training Corps squadrons


 * 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. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  03:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Air Training Corps squadrons

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does this list serve a purpose? It seems indiscriminate to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - like many other lists (including the ACF list), it is of interest to some, and Wikipedia readers do gain pleasure from seeing the range of members of such things. People in an ATC may certainly hope to consult WP to find which other ATCs there are. The situation on sourcing for lists seems to be rather different from normal articles - certainly we seem much more laid back about the requirement, not least because lists naturally act as collections of pointers, and the other pages do have sources, so why copy them en masse... it's a grey area, certainly, but the status quo does seem sensible. Indiscriminate? Well, lists inevitably are, but then the criterion for membership is in the list's name - and being an ATC is like being pregnant - you either are, or you aren't... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - "It seems indisciminate to me" doesn't sound like a deletion rationale soundly based in policy. The list is distinctly discriminate and states its non-indiscriminate status in its very name: it is, in fact, a list of squadrons of the Air Training Corps, exactly what it says on the tin. It is no more indiscriminate than List of United States Air Force squadrons; if the list is too long, it can be split up into sublists as that list was. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly acceptable list with defined scope. No reason whatsoever for deletion. How on earth can it be indiscriminate? Not sure the nominator really knows what "indiscriminate" means. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - An esoteric list, to be sure, but probably of service to military historians. Limited in scope, logically constructed. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A list article with a specific, discriminate topic focus. A useful article for Wikipedia to retain. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have any actual policy based reasons to delete, or are all of you just going on your own whims? All I see above is WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you meant to say keep there - although the slip replacing "keep" with "delete" is ironically approprate as there is no policy-based reason to delete. (And dare I trot out the "it's just an essay" argument I see used so often, with regards to WP:ATA?) - The Bushranger One ping only 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You can't propose an article for deletion with no policy-based reason except an opinion and an incorrect claim that it's indiscriminate, and then insist that those voting to keep have to put forward policy-based reasons! That's just hypocritical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This list needs to exist, because the subject Air Training Corps meets WP:GNG. Admittedly, the contents of this list may or may not be notable enough on their own to require their own article, as opposed to including the list in the main article (and I have no opinion on that question). But it seems to me that the list is too long for it to be merged into the main article in a practical fashion, so I say assert that leaving it separate is in accordance with WP:COMMONSENSE, regardless of the list's independent notability. - Jorgath (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2012 (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.