Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAF Krendi

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 with given comments, SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Krendi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs seem to all come from RAF web pages; discussion in multiple independent secondary sources is lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Are you serious? Of course RAF bases are notable. And none of the references are from "RAF web pages". Not one. Bizarre nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator is pointing is that most of the current refs are from https://www.rafht.co.uk/, www.rafweb.org, and the like, which are all dedicated RAF sites or blogs in terms of the area of interest. Also, in terms of web searching, RAF Qrendi seems to be a valid alternate spelling.
talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

While that may be true, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that's a matter for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails
WP:MILNG. I see no criterion for bases. Further, once you strip out the fan sites there's not much left for general notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes on GNG,
WP:GEOLAND (Most british bases had housing and were sparate legal entities). The base hosted a few squadrons, up to aroung a wing, of spitfires thus exceeding the squadron level cutoff. Plenty of book references found in quick before in google books, deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Icewhiz: How? MILUNIT specifies that "Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands" could be notable and that might apply to the three fighter squadrons that were stationed on Krendi, but not the runway and buildings. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The base commander is, in many air forces, the commander with authority over the stationed squadrons. Thus, this is greater than a squadron. Futhermore I will note that most military bases are deemed notable. This is rarely a question. It might be a question for a small barracks or a group of tents but not an airfield which is not a small installation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Necrothesp and Icewhiz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any RAF base will be featured in multiple independent sources. Matt's talk 23:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RAF Qrendi has a coat of arms / official Station badge, which ALONE confers notability!!!!!!!! [1]--Petebutt (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WWII RAF base is certainly notable. The complaint about a single source should be addressed by tagging it for better sources, not through AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With no surprise within 2 seconds of searching I found combined significant coverage from the
WP:BEFORE was adhered to. Why was an article about an air force base AfD'd only about 2 1/2 hours after article creation? [4] --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep RAF WWII bases are notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources added in the last few days seem sufficient to suggest it passes
WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I believe that this satisfies the
WP:GNG now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.