Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiskey 601

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. Sandstein 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey 601[edit]

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

Non notable training area. No g-hits and the only source not reliable. Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Area is notable. The fact there aren't many google hits only adds to the weight that it should be represented here. The reference is extremely credible. Please say why you assume the reference is not credible as it is referred to here in Wikipedia in dozens of places. We should build on this topic, and not wipe it out. Rcnvr (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. I've merged the information to Maritime Forces Pacific; I'm not sure whether people feel the redirect is worthy of being retained. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with high explosives: Oh come on. The only ref is to a fansite of naval slang? I get that Rcnvr doesn't think he needs to use proper sources [1], but that's not how Wikipedia works. He's also full of it if he thinks that the term is found "dozens of places" on Wikipedia. I found it in exactly one: the Maritime Forces Pacific article to which Buckshot06 suggests redirecting it. From where I sit, this is as NONnotable as it gets, and Rcnvr has to do more than just assert it's notable to make it so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:08, 8 October 2015 (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.