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 Hawk Mountain Ranger School. The Bushranger One ping only 04:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol Ranger

[edit]
Civil Air Patrol Ranger (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)

Claims to be a program of the Civil Air Patrol. Exhaustive search of national Civil Air Patrol regulations does not seem to mention such a program. No outside sources could be found. WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its notability derives entirely from the above:

Civil Air Patrol Ranger Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's too obvious to presume that you go to a ranger school to learn to be a ranger? Ok than.... try reading that second article I referenced: "...after graduating from ranger school, where Connor became a ranger, second class, and Colin earned the right to be called ranger, third class..." That alone is evidence that they exist. BTW, here is another link showing a Ranger training program in NC [4] Here are grading sheets from the courses for Advanced Ranger [5], Ranger first class [6], Ranger second class [7] and Ranger third class [8]. Note that each of these specifies that only instructors or higher ranking rangers can administer the tests. Again, pretty strong evidence that CAP rangers exist. The site for Hawk Mountain says "After this, the last part of the school involves testing, not just to graduate from the school, but also to earn Ranger Grade certifications which include 101 advancement"[9]. Here is a congresswoman from VA recognizing a cadet for attaining the Ranger first class rating. [10]. I'm not sure why you're hung up on only searching regulations, but that won't wash. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait, you are changing your story. I presented you with sources that pass GNG (such as the one that describes the course and activities). Then you claimed it shows there is a school, but no such thing as a Ranger. So I show you sources for that. then you turn around and claim that the sources showing there is such a thing aren't enough. No skippy, that single line isn't what gets it past GNG. If all you're finding is SPS, then you aren't paying attention. First off, the CAP sources aren't SPS, they're primary sources. there is a different. Second, the NJ.com article alone will probably get this past GNG. It is significant coverage by a reliable source. Lastly, the fact that you keep claiming you searched CAP documents and can't find anything, yet turn around and try to dismiss CAP sources as SPS's borders on comedy. Frankly, I don't think you even know what you're talking about at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still assert that there is no such thing as a Civil Air Patrol Ranger. CAP is a national organization, and if the national organization doesn't mention such creatures anywhere in their publications, that's pretty good evidence that there isn't such a beast. Furthermore, I cannot find significant independent coverage attesting to its notability. The notability guidelines require in-depth coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. I have made good-faith attempts at finding such things, and I have not. Subject is therefore non-notable and should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assert whatever you want. I have presented primary and secondary reliably sources that prove the title exists. Numerous CAP sites DO mention the term. Keep chanting that you haven't seen coverage, but the fact that I presented reliable third party coverage that DID give significant coverage counters that. I'm not some newbie here and I have been called a deletionist many times. This is not new ground for me. You're wrong and no amount of repeating yourself will change my mind. I'm done entertaining you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not given any third party coverage that gives significant coverage. I've seen throwaway lines. That is not in-depth. As for my assertion that CAP does not have rangers: the CAP corporation is a national organization. It has ground SAR personnel. I have only seen CAP refer to their ground SAR personnel as "ground team members". I will say that there is some (small) subset of CAP personnel who have begun styling themselves as rangers, following their attendance at a summer camp. There is no significant third party coverage of these "rangers". Hence, my assertion that such a class of personnel doesn't exist. The examples you have provided do not pass WP:GNG, as they are not in-depth. I can find non-CAP sources about their ground personnel, and what they do. I can find NOTHING about these rangers. I have tried. I can find things about the summer camp, but not the rangers themselves. If nobody outside the CAP organization cares to write in-depth about these rangers, then it is not notable. For a supposedly elite group within CAP that supposedly does all sorts of amazing things, I cannot find any corroboration. I can find third-party sources saying that CAP members have done things, including recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. But I saw no mention of any "CAP Rangers" being involved. So, maybe according to some within CAP, rangers do exist. Existence doesn't equal notability. Significant third party coverage equals notability. Going from what this article has told me, and my research on CAP operations, the only thing that distinguishes these "rangers" from the rest of CAP is a summer camp. And we already have an article on the summer camp. And even if these rangers filled a unique operational niche within CAP, the lack of third party coverage still dooms it to the fate that all non-notable subjects have: deletion. Since we're talking about a sub-organization, I'll also mention WP:ORGDEPTH. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you trying to be obtuse? The article from NJ.com gives significant coverage. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it. This shit is getting old. You talk and talk, , yet say nothing new. I'm willing to bet that the WP:BEFORE activity you were supposed to perform didn't didn't turn up those sources I provided. In any case, I've wasted enough time responding to you. Have the last word Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please pay attention. That source was NOT offered as significant coverage to pass GNG. It was offered as an example proving that the term you claim doesn't exist, does in fact exist. Nothing more. Stop pretending like you have a point, because you have none regarding this reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the CAP Corporation claims to have rangers. All I have seen is that a class of members, namely those in and around Pennsylvania, have styled themselves as such. There is no significant third party coverage. The article should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2013 (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.
More