Deletion of Chinook Display Team

Comment: Since the article has now been expanded and third party refs added it now meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Importance and |notability are crystal clear. There is no case whatsoever for deleting this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: how about using those refs to expand the article so the rest of us can see what can be made of it? Right now it has only 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: Here's https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Blade_Slap_A_Year_with_the_RAF_Chinook_D/cihWwQEACAAJ?hl=en a book about the team and there's plenty of coverage in the aeronautical and general press too, of course.  The topic therefore passes  and the usual policies apply: , , , , &c
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet  or any other notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: article has been |significantly expanded since the nom. Has ''plenty'' of SIGCOV in RS to meet WP:GNG. All the 'keep' !votes above make additional good arguments as well. Also, as the OP has pointed out; "''{{tq|the Royal Air Force normally has three or four officially nominated}}'' display teams ''{{tq|every year (for at least 40 years)}}''", so it certainly seems like a worthy article to have
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: If there are multiple independent reliable sources, then the subject is notable.  Please read  and  because Wikipedia policy is very clear that what matters is whether sources exist, whether the subject is notable, NOT the current state of the article.  Please, re-read the policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:ATD)