Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Canadian Forces Supply Depot (7 CFSD)


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

7 Canadian Forces Supply Depot (7 CFSD)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article about a Canadian military organisation. It lists one source which is the Canadian National Archives and leads me to suspect that this article is based on original research. Notability of the subject has not been established. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Much encyclopedic content, probably could meet wp:notability. Material looks plausible. Lacking sources.   North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is not enough to speculate that a subject might be notable, contain alleged "encyclopedic content" or that the material in an article looks superficially plausible. In order to sustain a Wikipedia article, WP:V and WP:GNG require that the article have multiple, independent, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and that the detail be supported by inline citations.  This is not the case here.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple, independant and reliable sources are available and will be added by end September 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrigan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)  — Hendrigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the creating editor says they can provide references, shouldn't they be given a chance to do so. If they are unable to do so before the end of the AfD, may I suggest userfying it to a subpage of the creator's userpage? There, they can work on it, and reintroduce it to the encyclopedia proper when sources have been added. -- saberwyn 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the editor can provide references, surely several days is enough to do so. If he cannot, of course there's no problem with userfying the article.  Indeed, nothing prevents him from doing so now.  (That being said, the article creator hasn't made a contribution either to this article or to Wikipedia in nearly a month as of 9/1, aside from his comment in this AfD.)    ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep My research has found many independent verifiable sources. This article just need to be wikified. Badly written and constructed articles do not need to be deleted. Just needs to be corrected.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Splendid. Would you mind supplying those sources, please?  Ravenswing  17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a week later. I see no sources. I also see no reason why there would be any sources for notability, for this sort of supply organization. I also don't see the point of userification--if the unit has ever done something sufficiently non-routine that non-trivial sources actually exist, the article can be easily enough restored.   DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.