Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional Area 59

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. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Area 59

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

Some of this articles problems are, NPOV, unreferenced, possibly WP:MADEUP, Lacks Notability (as in, why is 59 so important), needs cleanup Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether or not to delete, as I am unsure of the topic's notability. However, it is not "made up". Google Books shows one reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with fame or importance; AFD is not cleanup; and a deletion nomination for within 4 minutes of the article's creation bespeaks of little to no effort made to determine whether sources in fact exist. {{subst:afd1}} is not the only tool in the toolbox, and you are supposed to put in the effort to apply deletion policy properly before using that tag. Uncle G (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you referring to? Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm referring to your actions, where you clearly didn't have enough time to look for sources to see whether they exist, which is what you are supposed to do per deletion policy. Look for yourself, and only if you don't find any sources existing nominate the article for deletion for being unverifiable. (If you do find some, add them and help build the article.) Follow the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, which is taken directly from policy of long standing. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you didn't look for sources either. Also you certainly aren't aware of all of Wikipedia's policies either (WP:CIVIL).

Delete. This is not made up; it's U.S. Army terminology.[1] However, while there may or may not be an argument for Functional Area, FA59 certainly does not merit a whole article to itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also referenced in Basic Strategic Arts Program. See Chapter 36: Strategic Plans and Policy Functional Area by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Could possibly be notable, but I don't have time at the moment to dig for refs to swing one way or the other. I have to agree with Uncle G, though. Don't instanom an article for deletion. Not only is it rude and probably bespeaks a failure to follow the process of WP:BEFORE, but it's biting the newbies, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organisational minutia IMO. A search of google books reveals very little, as does a web search. As such this subject seemingly lacks "signficant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and incomprehensible. Reading it, I feel like its trying to describe a military occupational specialty, but it's not. From what I gather, it seems to describe some sort of nebulous and poorly-defined staff concept. I think we might be able to afford a redirect to staff (military). bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:16, 7 January 2011 (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.