Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts Wing Civil Air Patrol


 * 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.

Massachusetts Wing Civil Air Patrol
The result was   keep per withdrawal. (WP:NAC). Oroso (talk)  04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

My primary basis for deletion is WP:ORG. I don't think the article asserts why this particular wing is notable and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to say it is. Oroso (talk)  07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAWN: I wasn't 100% about deletion and wanted to get a sense of the consensus. Jerry establishes enough notability for me. As far as an article on a state wing that's written well, Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol and Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol are written significantly better. Oroso (talk)  04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While I tend to thing Wings are inherently notable, articles like this must still provide evidence of such. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know enough about this topic, and clearly this article does not contain much useful information right now. That being said, someone went to the trouble to create the Civil Air Patrol template for all the states. Is there anything noteworthy here to keep? Is it possible that there should just be a single article (not dividing by states)? Timneu22 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The creation of the template indicates that there will be ongoing effort to build and maintain these articles, so deletion of them at this time is premature. Just a smpling of the ongoing coverage in reliable sources that this entity receives (google news alone has over 19,000 articles):
 * The Daily News Tribune, 26 December 2008
 * Christian Science Monitor, 12 July 1946
 * Worcester Telegram Gazette, 26 July 1999
 * Boston Globe, 8 March 2003
 * The Republican, 18 April, 2006
 * The Telegraph, 18 March, 2002
 * The Berkshire Eagle, 13 November 2001
 * New York Times, 7 March 1970
 * Lowell Sun, 18 July 1949
 * Lowell Sun, 5 August 1969
 * Fitchburg Sentinel, 16 November 1953
 * Boston Globe, 5 March 2003
 * Boston Globe, 1 June 1986
 * Loislaw Journal, 21 July 1948
 * Bennington Evening Banner, 1 October 1956

 Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would say keep, but I suggest that one of the first tasks should be to write one of the articles very well, and then use it as an example for all the other states' articles. Right now, there's not much worth keeping so I understand the request to delete it. Timneu22 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Civil Air Patrol top-level articles by state. I agree that it would be useful to write a good article on one of them. Still, this article has a few facts, and if deleted, would raise the level of effort needed to create a new article, so it's worth keeping. Fg2 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (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.