Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the Bangladesh Air Force (2nd nomination)

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. I find it a little odd that this was even relisted---the consensus was clear in the first few days DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Could not find context, references. Seemed like an individual opinion page in current form. Devopam (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comment. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force as per the first AfD in Jan 2016 & protect from recreation, to avoid future deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's completely unreferenced. Merging the content into Forces_Goal_2030 manually is an option (if properly referenced). I don't think we need to save the history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I wouldn't argue with a redirect, except for the propensity for recreation, and ignoring the consensus of AfD. Editors could be encouraged to expand the existing section in the target article with updated info. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Ajf773; further as noted, does not have proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or may be merged with Bangladesh Air Force after suitable modification in the content. --Bhadani (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Jim. If any detail is worth keeping (my opinion is there is too much) put it there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with Bangladesh Air Force Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force per K.e.coffman. This is a valid search term, and we should take them to the Bangladeshi military's plans for the future of the Air Force. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect on the condition that it be full protected. The main argument against redirect is that its so easy to recreate. This is a solution that has been used during at least one AfD I have participated in before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese). I think it a good solution to this case as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per nom, per above. Subject and context doesn't warrant WP:SPLIT, and can be sufficiently covered within the scope of Bangladesh_Air_Force. I also think, salting and protecting is a good idea; if in any distant future (cannot foresee happening), splitting seems necessary, an AfC should be used. --nafSadh did say 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No redirect as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, it is not a valid search term. Any extant plans covered in significant detail in reliable sources can be summarized in a single short section of Bangladesh_Air_Force. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has radically changed since being nominated for deletion and is now looking like the general layout of, for instance, Future of the Royal Navy. I can't see the problem with the existence of the article per se, we have many Future of the <foo> articles. There may possibly be referencing problems (I haven't checked carefully) but the very first reference is to Jane's website. Jane's is the go to source for military matters, is impeccably reliable, and coverage there strongly indicates a notable topic. Anything problematic should be cleaned up. The nuclear option of delete is unnecessary hear. SpinningSpark 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pinging top, active, registered contributors to the two proposed merge/redirect targets (Bangladesh Air Force or Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force) for their subject expertise. Attention collaborators (AzfarShams—FOX 52—ScrapIronIV—SRS 00—Thomas.W) --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced fancruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and mere speculations about what might happen in the future does not belong here. Articles/lists of this kind are also almost impossible to keep encyclopaedic and focussed, since they attract fanboys trying to prove that their country is better than everybody else's country, by inflating numbers and adding ever wilder speculations about what the future might bring. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WP:CBALL - Consensus is pretty much unanimous, delete - what more needs to be said FOX 52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL It is speculative cruft, and wishful thinking. Scr★pIron^IV 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A total fanboy article. Even the references provided there has no match with what the article says. SRS 00^t@lk, 18:08, 16 June 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.