Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleet Systems Engineering Team

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Systems Engineering Team

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on an unremarkable training scheme in the US Navy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a training scheme. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the products of a training scheme if you prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added two citations to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Buckshot06(prof) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources included aren't really independent. Spawar helps design new systems for the navy and works closely w/ L-3. The house committee source is from the testimony of the spawar commander. I see that the user was in the navy (he was on a target, to boot) and now works for L-3, so he clearly has some interest and expertise. My suggestion is that he search out independent sources for the information provided. The Naval Engineer's Journal is a highly technical third party resource that may have an article on FSET installations. Seapower, published by the Navy League is also sufficiently independent, so a promo story on FC's might work. All Hands is not technically independent, but is probably sufficiently so for an article like this. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable training scheme or organisation, article does not make much sense in either case. doktorb _words^deeds 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The article looks like it was written by a chief. It makes sense presuming that you understand the terms and admire some of the syntactical peculiarities of modern naval language. The article subject probably isn't notable, but there is a slim possibility that a concerted search through periodicals dedicated to the subject might reform that outlook. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (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.