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 merge to New Zealand Air Training Corps. Which should be pruned of excess detail... Sandstein 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand

Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

apparently no thirdparty sources, nor would I expect there to be any DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails ORGSIG, ORGCRITE, SIRS. No independent coverage in acceptable sources. Only available sources are primary. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to New Zealand Air Training Corps - there are plenty of reasons for an organisation like this to have received coverage. In effect, it is to the New Zealand Air Training Corps as the National Guard Association of the United States is to the National Guard (United States). That said, coverage of the organisation itself seems very thin. I can't think of a policy that would result in it being notable by virtue of its place within an official national military structure. I don't think it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete an article about an association that clearly exists and has the function it purports to have. People researching the topic would likely benefit from it being here. But "it serves our primary purpose as editors of a public encyclopedia" isn't (ironically) a reason to keep an article. The article into which we would merge it is large and detailed (which seems a reasonable justification for spinning this article off from it), but it is what it is. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 04:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

perhaps that merge would be more acceptable if some of. the excess detail in the target article were decreased. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. Otherwise it just becomes an obvious spin-off opportunity and we'll be back here before we know it. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 04:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Merge Agree with all above, non notable on its own, but deserves more than a mention on its merge page. There is a lot I would like to strip from New Zealand Air Training Corps but the page was made with love and it might be best if it was reduced with equal affection for the topic. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (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.