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 redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2M0X1 (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)

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This employment specialty, "Missile and Space Systems Electrical Maintenance", is a subcategory of "Missile and Space Systems Maintenance". The latter is described at length in internal documents [1] and recruiting literature [2] [3] [4] published by the U.S. Air Force, but these do not qualify as "independent" under WP:GNG. The only independent source I can find is a Rand Corporation publication on the future of the Air Force, which lists the specialties within the latter category and briefly describes some proposed cuts in this sector [5]. Since this source is primary and doesn't give broader contextualization, I don't think it is "in-depth" enough to allow us to write an encyclopedic article more useful than the listing of these specialties under Air_Force_Specialty_Code#Maintenance_and_logistics. My opinion could be changed to a merge to Missile and Space Systems Maintenance if someone found, for example, a page or two in a military history book describing the emergence of this specialty and the historical importance of its contributions. FourViolas (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - some sources - [6][7] [8] table mentions:[9] [10]Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. There doesn't seem to be enough WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:INDEPENDENT coverage to create a separate article for each of these codes. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code per Kvng. If we have more 2M0X1s then we'll disambig, but this really fits better (given relative little coverage on the one hand, and the close relatedness to other codes (the whole 2M branch - 2M0X2, 2M0X3). If significant sourcing emerges for a particular specialty - then perhaps it would merit a separate article - but as it is we've just got a copy-paste of the job description.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. I agree there is not enough coverage to make this a stand-alone topic. I think redirect is the best option per User:Icewhiz .Steve Quinn (talk) 03:47, 10 September 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.