Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleet Systems Engineering Team

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