Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleet Systems Engineering Team
- Fleet Systems Engineering Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on an unremarkable training scheme in the US Navy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a training scheme. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- An article about the products of a training scheme if you prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added two citations to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Buckshot06(prof) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete non notable training scheme or organisation, article does not make much sense in either case. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)