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 delete. WP:MILUNIT is an essay and therefore a weak argument to make, and a redirect to Swiss Air Force can be created if this squadron is ever mentioned there (right now, no squadrons are). Sandstein 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 14 Instrument Flying Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 12:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- We have articles on all the other squadrons of the Swiss Air Force. A lack of citations in a stub is not a valid reason for deletion; only for tagging for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ow, I am willing to nominate all squadrons created by the community banned sockpuppeteer, if that solves your problem. The Banner talk 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MILUNIT #7. Clearly has sources. Print sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a community decision or just a local decision? The Banner talk 10:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MILUNIT is not an official Wikipedia policy and thus an invalid argument in an AfD. Print sources are acceptable per WP:OFFLINE (I can't judge whether the particular sources in the article go towards GNG though). Alvaldi (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Of the two offline sources linked in the article, one is about the "Color scheme and markings of Swiss military aviation 1914-1950" which is hardly GNG material. The other seems to be about the Hawker Hunter jet. No evidence that either one has any significant coverage on the Squadron. Was unable to find any other sources online. That we have articles on other squadrons has no effect on this one as notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. Alvaldi (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the source analysis conducted by Alvaldi unless someone can surface better sources. "We have articles on all the other squadrons of the Swiss Air Force" sounds a lot like an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and doesn't hold water. As for WP:MILUNIT, it is an essay that explicitly states "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline" and "[The] presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." -Ljleppan (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Swiss Air Force: Redirect to a sentence on Swiss Air Force. Gusfriend (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2022 (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.