Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Grammar School Cadet Corps


 * 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 into Sydney Grammar School. Baseball,Baby!  balls  •  strikes  18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Grammar School Cadet Corps
It would appear to me that a school cadet corps is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, and I don't think there's enough there to merge. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into a section of the Sydney Grammar School losing details. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Capital. GizzaChat  &#169; 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Sydney Grammar School article. (JROBBO 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep The school has "the oldest Air Force Cadets organisation in Australia, an Army Cadet Corps which pre-dates the existence of the Australian army" We should be able to find enough sources to make this page viable on its own. Its not like the school isn't ancient enough on its own to put its "notability" out of the question.  Ans e ll  08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge not notable on their own, and sets a bad precedent. The JPS talk to me  10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way are you using the notability concept. They fulfill every policy (although the current page does not demonstrate this), why should they be forced to fulfil a further requirement. The precedent for long-standing cadet corps is not too far out from the common pool of human knowledge for me. Ans e ll  11:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way are you using the notability concept. They fulfill every policy (although the current page does not demonstrate this), why should they be forced to fulfil a further requirement. The precedent for long-standing cadet corps is not too far out from the common pool of human knowledge for me. Ans e ll  11:08, 22 August 2006 (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.