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.
This does not need to be on Wikipedia. Ranks don't differ from Australian Defence Force apart from addition to the name of each rank which is not notable outside the organisation and associated entities, and citations are not publicly available.
Tytrox (
talk)
10:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. There is no policy-based rationale in the nomination. Arguing "does not need to be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale; no article needs to be here. I have no idea what to make of the claim that they "don't differ from Australian Defence Force" significantly. Both sets of insignia are pretty similar to
RAF insignia so on that basis we should be looking to delete
Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force as well. Besides, the claim does not hold up – in the Cadets there is a need for the insignia to distinguish between cadets and instructors and officer cadets and establishment officers. This is unique to the Cadets. Finally, the nominator claims that the "citations are not publicly available". If by this it is meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read
WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information on cadet signia is easily found online, for instance
here.
SpinningSpark12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair point that my first argument was not solid. The information is already available at
Australian Defence Force Cadets (which I deleted but have since restored due to being trigger-happy in retrospect (which could then consider this article obsolete)).
Tytrox (
talk)
12:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I would be happy with that solution. I also note that the nominator caused the problem by deleting the information from that article.
SpinningSpark14:34, 6 July 2018 (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.
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.
This does not need to be on Wikipedia. Ranks don't differ from Australian Defence Force apart from addition to the name of each rank which is not notable outside the organisation and associated entities, and citations are not publicly available.
Tytrox (
talk)
10:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. There is no policy-based rationale in the nomination. Arguing "does not need to be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale; no article needs to be here. I have no idea what to make of the claim that they "don't differ from Australian Defence Force" significantly. Both sets of insignia are pretty similar to
RAF insignia so on that basis we should be looking to delete
Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force as well. Besides, the claim does not hold up – in the Cadets there is a need for the insignia to distinguish between cadets and instructors and officer cadets and establishment officers. This is unique to the Cadets. Finally, the nominator claims that the "citations are not publicly available". If by this it is meant that the sources are offline then the nominator should read
WP:SOURCEACCESS which states that such sources are fine. In any case, the information on cadet signia is easily found online, for instance
here.
SpinningSpark12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair point that my first argument was not solid. The information is already available at
Australian Defence Force Cadets (which I deleted but have since restored due to being trigger-happy in retrospect (which could then consider this article obsolete)).
Tytrox (
talk)
12:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I would be happy with that solution. I also note that the nominator caused the problem by deleting the information from that article.
SpinningSpark14:34, 6 July 2018 (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.