Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RNZAF Dip Flat


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While I don't find the argument that bases are generally notable (or that similar articles exist) persuasive, there is no consensus about whether the sourcing meets GNG, which for me is the main argument here. Closing as no consensus on this basis. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

RNZAF Dip Flat

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

Non-notable military base. Fails GNG while being unsourced for 15 years, nothing but routine/trivial mentions in searches for source finding. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and New Zealand. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have numerous articles for bases just like this. Did the OP do a wp:before check prior to listing this for deletion? - w o lf  08:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Military bases have generally been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Military bases are normally noteworthy and the article is in need attention, not deletion. Majorconvenience (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Under what guideline are military bases & training facilities inherently noteworthy? The sources added are trivial coverage in relation to the subject itself (since none of them are about the facility itself, just routine "x unit trained here"). It looks like it's going to get a consensus keep regardless of failing GNG, could you still point out the guideline so I can make a note of it if I come across any future military training facilities like this. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "inherently noteworthy" and "normally noteworthy". The point being that bases typically have articles, or are part of articles (eg: part of larger, multi-service joint bases that were created out of mergers). Since you are following up here and engaging (which is a good thing), I'll ask again if you did a before prior to putting up the nom? Thanks - w o lf  08:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through Google News & Scholar which returned 1 result each, of no significant value, and a regular google search, that only returned insignificant minor articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Sources in the article and in BEFORE do not meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if SIGCOV sources are added.  // Timothy :: talk  14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You could just watch the article. You'll definitely see any changes, as opposed to someone maybe pinging you if refs are added. - w o lf 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on if you consider Air Force News SIGCOV - the camp, which is *not* called "RNZAF Dip Flat" as it is not a base in its own right, instead being an outstation of Woodbourne, will be covered repeatedly in issues of Air Force News. Seems not to get into much Google Books that I can find, however. If this goes delete, a sourced excerpt should be added to RNZAF Base Woodbourne. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a merge of the Dip Flat content into Woodbourne's article would do the job nicely, it's quite clearly an adjunct minor outpost of the Woodbourne base rather than any notable facility in it's own right. Air Force News might be significant coverage but it wouldn't be independent due to any information coming from groups who own or were operating there and so doesn't count for passing GNG imo. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're in favour of a merge now? Either the content is notable or it isn't, whether it's part of another article or on it's own. Can't have it both ways. You should close this nom and do a WP:MERGEPROP instead. - w o lf  06:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm merely stating that some of the content in the article could be added to the Woodbourne article if this is deleted. There's no guideline that requires the total purge of a non-notable article's content (for example, there are thousands of entries in war articles that involve non-notable minor battles & participants/units/squadrons), and in this case, it is clear that the Dip Flat "area" is not notable, but that a line or two could be added to the major, notable Woodbourne base as the military uses of Woodbourne do include occasional minor usage of Dip Flat even though there's not enough content to make it significant & notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Discussion of available source material about this subject would be very helpful. "It's just notable" arguments are not helpful at all. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems to be 100km away from RNZAF Base Woodbourne I don't see a merge as being suitable as it can't be regarded as being an outlying field. While the sourcing isn't the strongest I believe that independent notability is established. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Leaning keep, per those above. This appears to be a distinct and independent operating facility. I would expect additional sources could be found through a diligent search. BD2412  T 03:53, 15 October 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.