Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head-on engagement

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 keep‎. The concerns of sourcing has been impoved now by participators. (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Head-on engagement

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged as dubious and in 2009 as unsourced - why do we even need to spend more time thinking about this? Chidgk1 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. One fact in the article is tagged as dubious. Neither a dubious tag or being unreferenced is a policy-based argument for deletion. Note that WP:V does not require references be present in the article, only that they exist, and as this is not WP:BLP its unreferenced state is not applicable. The nominator fails to advance any policy-based argument for deletion and thus this should be speedy closed per WP:SK3. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one ref on the talk page which is not enough. If other refs exist go ahead and show them Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only BLPs require that references be in an article. For other topics, WP:V only requires that sources exist. They should be in the article, but a lack of them is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Note that I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn' be deleted for policy-based reasons, but your deletion nomination here fails to advance any and is thus not a valid deletion nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source exists but do sources exist? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current poor quality of an article on a topic with plenty of available sources is no reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying one is plenty or do you have more? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to prove notability. Agletarang (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying one source is enough? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? There are no sources in the article, and no one has provided them here yet. There are a few scholarly articles which mention this but I think the search engines now think I'm getting married. What are the best sources here? SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be sourced.Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be sourced? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm seeing that it might be difficult to source with unreliable blogs like this. But I also see a few possibilities in Google news. I saved 90 unsourced stubs and articles last month, and have updated almost 600 unsourced tags in the past few weeks alone. So somebody else will have to do the work to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common term in aviation combat literature. And yes, I'm aware there's only one source currently listed so don't bother pointing it out again. Intothat darkness 19:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So as you say it is a common term it should be easy for you or someone else saying “keep” to add enough cites I guess? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying you couldn't be bothered to do a proper search before nominating it for deletion? Badgering people isn't a good way to make your case. Intothat darkness 11:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've gone ahead and added 3 new citations on this topic, as well as grabbing a fourth citation from the interwiki version that existed on tewiki. Removed the unreferenced tag as well. AfD is not cleanup. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:43, 19 July 2025 (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.