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 Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No claim of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

613SQN (AAFC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nominating for deletion, as it doesn't cite any sources, nor indeed does it seem notable - it seems vaguely like advertising. Being the oldest AAFC in the country might be a bear claim to notability, but many other units - in the UK Sea Cadet Corps for example - have been going for 80 years or more. I think a redirect and merge with an appropriate list would be more appropriate. _{There are also several other articles of this nature being nominated separately.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG. No more individually notable than a Boy Scout troop. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 13:36, 27 September 2007 (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.