Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Air Force 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force squadrons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This is basically the same as List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons, except that perhaps this ought to include the reserve and Air Guard units. Further, it seems to be a list of lists. All in all, the aforementioned is much better. If we fixed this, we would more or less have duplicated that one. What say you? --&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. How is this remotely the same? This "list of lists" article seems to encompass *all* types of Air Force squadrons, rather than just aviation-related squadrons (which seems to be somewhat out of date comparitively, perhaps?). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Does the Air Force have Dental Squadrons? If we could list all those oddball units, this article might have some utility I suppose. All in all, I am unhappy with the list of functions (Presidential transport) rather than the units themselves (XXth Airlift Squadron). Did my recent fit of editing help or hurt? --&#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough, it does have dental squadrons, plenty of them. While I haven't checked them all, I would guess that each of the redlinked squadron names contain actual squadrons, many active, some historical. I'm not really sure how I feel about removing all of them, tbh, as redlinking isn't something to be frowned upon, nor does it violate any guideline (that I'm aware of, at least). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Two completely different lists.  List of USAF squadrons covers types of squadrons.  ex: Air control, Air defense, Intelligence.  The ACTIVE USAF AIRCRAFT squadron is a list of individual squadrons such as "16th Airborne" and "7th Airlift".  I'm wondering if you actually looked at the content of these lists; or just noticed the similarity in article titles.  I noticed that prior to nominating this for deletion that you appeared to gut a large portion of the article first., , and .  I'm wondering if there is a particular line of thinking here that I'm missing. — Ched (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Maybe I am the one who is wrong. Take a look. Did I improve or ruin this article with my changes? &#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not faulting the removal of red links, but I will note that it is common to have them in articles in hopes of future creation. I won't go so far as to say you ruined the article, and certainly not with malicious intent; still, in you eagerness you've also removed List of United States Air Force fighter squadrons with your edit  here.  You claimed earlier today in your edit summary here, and I quote: OK, here comes the Great Pruning of this. Down to bare bones to rebuild it - and yet here you are 8 hours later putting the article up for deletion.  I hardly consider putting something up for deletion as "rebuilding", so yes, I question both your methods and your intent. — Ched (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: I've also mentioned this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history — Ched (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wandered to this article and thought I could make it more like the RAF article. Then, after much chopping I found List of active United States Air Force aircraft squadrons and lost heart. That article seems (to me) to be all this one wants to be. Or not. After a period of comment we can undo what damage I might have done. &#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I surrender I am sure I made a mistake. Thank you all. I would propose one of you repair whatever damage I did and close this discussion. &#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Different list, and it a valid list for linking to so many related articles.  D r e a m Focus  13:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Squadrons of the United States Air Force are highly notable, and a list of them is a useful thing to have. It is surprising to me that this would even be nominated for deletion.  - WPGA2345 -  ☛  15:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a duplicate as noted above.  Linked lists of different types of combat squadrons benefit from being combined at a central location.  Support squadrons depend on interest (Paul has deleted a lot of empty lists, but who knows when someone with an interest with fill them out to the extent, for example, that the aerial port and communications lists have been).  Also many of these lists include historical units not currently active (and do not require the maintenance that "list of active USAF Foo Squadrons" would have.)  I would eliminate the Presidential airlift (redirect to 89th Airlift Wing, not a link to a list of squadrons and Air Force demonstration (same to United States Air Force Thunderbirds).  Civil Engineer only contains RED HORSE and PRIME BEEF units, which are listed separately and contains no Civil Engineer, Civil Engineering (1961-1994), or Installations (1948-1961) squadrons.  If the red links create too much clutter, the lists could be divided into sections for operational and support squadrons.
 * Speedy Keep, a very relevant list that serves its purpose and is NOT duplicated by the list suggested. Utopes (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2019 (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.