Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Naval Service Officers


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. While there does not appear to be a question that this is a verifiable subject, its notability is questioned, though not rebutted conclusively. There is significant disagreement as to whether the coverage in reliable sources is significant, or whether certain sources are independent of the subject. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Association of Naval Service Officers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ORG. Sourced entirely to website and dead link of ANSO newsletter. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

--Whpq (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage about this group in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Where did you look? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Selected list of reliable secondary sources and significant coverage about the group: (there are many more)
 * Keep - A quick Google search reveals that multiple military- and Hispanic-related publication regularly reference ANSO and its activities and accomplishments (I have added several references to the article). After my edits today, the article is no longer single-sourced nor depends on an ANSO-published source. BTW, I hope it's totally coincidental that this article about an organization of which Tony Santiago is a member and an officer is nominated for deletion at the same time that the biographical article of him is equally nominated for deletion.  Pr4ever (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sourcing you've added is either non-independent, or passing mentions:
 * , and are websites for chapters of the ANSO which are hardly independent
 * is about an article about a coast guard person which mentions ANSIO a couple of times. That's not significant coverage.
 * is a conferene announcement and is essetnially a press release. It does not represent coverage.
 * are some photos and isn't coverage
 * Keep - A quick Google search reveals that multiple military- and Hispanic-related publication regularly reference ANSO and its activities and accomplishments (I have added several references to the article). After my edits today, the article is no longer single-sourced nor depends on an ANSO-published source. BTW, I hope it's totally coincidental that this article about an organization of which Tony Santiago is a member and an officer is nominated for deletion at the same time that the biographical article of him is equally nominated for deletion.  Pr4ever (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sourcing you've added is either non-independent, or passing mentions:
 * , and are websites for chapters of the ANSO which are hardly independent
 * is about an article about a coast guard person which mentions ANSIO a couple of times. That's not significant coverage.
 * is a conferene announcement and is essetnially a press release. It does not represent coverage.
 * are some photos and isn't coverage
 * Keep - A quick Google search reveals that multiple military- and Hispanic-related publication regularly reference ANSO and its activities and accomplishments (I have added several references to the article). After my edits today, the article is no longer single-sourced nor depends on an ANSO-published source. BTW, I hope it's totally coincidental that this article about an organization of which Tony Santiago is a member and an officer is nominated for deletion at the same time that the biographical article of him is equally nominated for deletion.  Pr4ever (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sourcing you've added is either non-independent, or passing mentions:
 * , and are websites for chapters of the ANSO which are hardly independent
 * is about an article about a coast guard person which mentions ANSIO a couple of times. That's not significant coverage.
 * is a conferene announcement and is essetnially a press release. It does not represent coverage.
 * are some photos and isn't coverage
 * Comment @Pr4ever: No, it's not entirely coincidental, because I became aware of this article while attempting to salvage Tony Santiago, an article about the Wikipedia administrator who is listed in this article as historian of this organization. That article mentioned prominently his association with ANSO. The article has since been deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nom. Recent edits have not addressed this article's issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable service organization and professional society that represents Hispanics in the military.  Significant data point for Hispanic and Latino American military history, as Edward Hidalgo helped to form this group and was responsible for dramatically increasing the number of Hispanics in the U.S. Navy in only 10 years. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - of the citations in the article, one is reliable (the Military Times), of which the ANSO is mentioned in one sentence. Not significant coverage. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There were four reliable sources in the article when you added that comment. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is one reliable, independent source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there continues to be four. The sources in the further reading section are independent of the subject and reliable. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. I can't find anything on the Hispanic Times magazine, leading me to wonder how big it is (and therefore its reliabilty), and a biography of a SecNav isn't significant coverage. Yes, the newspaper article is reliable, but newspapers don't exactly have high standards for stories... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with this nonsense? You once again posted a comment without doing the slightest bit of research. Google books clearly shows that it is or was a notable magazine with more than 25 volumes. The newspapers are all reliable and the biography demonstrates the notability of the organization.  There are many more additional sources that are not in use, and not all of them are easy to find on Google. This is a notable service organization recognized by the U.S. government and her military. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is well-sourced with multiple reliable sources. While it would be ideal not to carry dead links, it's arguable that the dead link was not live and valid at the time of inclusion. WP:AGF applies here, or just do a GoBack. With Hispanic population growth being the hit news 2 decades in a row, it's difficult to see how the subject of the article is not notable. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * The dead link goes to an announcement of appointment of a historian for the organization. So it is tangential. That person is a Wikipedia editor who is aware of this article and has edited it. In light of the close association of the ANSO historian with Wikipedia (he is an administrator), it seems that the best information that is available for this article is already in it, and that it is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current state of consisting largely of a list of names. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That statement is demonstrably false given the information in the further reading section that has not yet been added to the article. This was already pointed out to you previously, and you ackowledged it (but you removed the discussion) so your comment above is somewhat unbelievable (and tendentious) to me.  How can you acknowledge and deny something at the same time?  To recap, we have  additional content in three reliable sources located in the further reading section that has not yet been added.  This is very easy to understand, so I do not understand the basis of your comment except that it must only be justified by "I don't like it".  Sadly for your argument, that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion was removed to the talk page, with your agreement, because it was largely off-topic (regarding the COI tag on the article). If this article is brimming with reliable sources, why not stop arguing about it and attacking people who don't agree with you and simply add the information supposedly contained in those sources to the article, rather than simply listing them as "further reading"? Why not share all that information with Wikipedia readers and not just here, to score points in an AfD? More to the point, why hasn't the historian of this organization, a Wikipedia administrator who has edited this article, made any effort to build up this article? He built up the section about himself in December 2009, but that was it. It has been over a year since then. If the historian of an organization can't build up this article beyond it's current state, there's no reason to believe it will ever be done. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous! I've addressed your poor argument and I have attacked nobody.  Now, I've addressed your contradictory statements.  Previously, you acknowledged the absence of material and said that the material in the further reading section that has not yet been added "should be in the article"  Yet you now say and maintain that "the best information that is available for this article is already in it, and that it is unlikely to be expanded".  Completely contradictory, absurd, and ridiculous.  Your argument is based on your campaign against Tony Santiago, not on this article.  "You don't like it" is what it amounts to, and that is not a valid argument for deletion.  The further reading section demonstrates non-trivial coverage by third parties, and you've already acknowledged it.  You can't backpedal now and say it doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is ridiculous. You added some citations to a "further reading" section but didn't add anything from that "further reading" to the article. I asked you to do so, and you became incredibly hostile. So yes, I have concluded that the best information available re ANSO is already in the article because 1) This article has been in existence for sixteen months and nobody, including the historian of this organization, have been able to expand it and 2) You claim to have possession of oodles of additional sourcing that escaped everybody else, and you won't add it. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the absurdity. Each time you respond you move the goalposts and make additional fantastic claims.  Sources have been added to the article for you to expand.  Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have access to the contents of these sources that you've described and... oh, wait a moment, do you? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever responded to a single comment without moving the goalposts or making false assumptions or accusations? Have you? Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the lack of non-trivial coverage by third part sources shows that this is hardly a notable organization. The article exists because one of the members is a Wikipedian. If, in the future, the organization attains some relevance, I would not object the recreation of the article. --Damiens .rf 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * False. The organization is historically responsible for increasing the presence of Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. military and is recognized as such by reliable sources. Its notability is not in question by anyone. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's according to who? And why isn't that in the article? ScottyBerg (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you are admitting that you haven't looked at the sources in the article nor have you done any research. Great way to run an AfD.  Par for the course and exactly what I expect from Wikipedia.  Delete away... Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. They're not online. And if you haven't looked at them either, which is obvious, it's pretty irresponsible to do what you've been doing - which is describing articles you haven't seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More absurdity and ridiculousness. Clearly, you have not done the research. I found the biography article on Google in less than 2 seconds.  I haven't done a single thing "irresponsible" here or anywhere else for that matter.  Your repeated false statements and accusations are certainly distracting people from the fact that you don't have a valid argument for deletion.  Keep it up. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I indicated below, the link you provided above is some kind of biography website, and it appears to not be a verifiable or reliable source, and neither is it a nontrivial mention. But we'll let the closing administrator decide. That alone is not sufficient to sufficiently source the article per WP:ORG, even if that source met Wiki standards. What's needed are multiple nontrivial sourcing that is independent of ANSO. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the false claims. As I indicated below, the link I provided is an online version of the published entry from  It was only offered to you because you made the absurd claim based on bad faith that I had not seen the content nor was it verifiable.  Each and every time I respond to your point, you move the goalposts and make additional false claims.  It's getting tiring. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I have looked at the sources to the article that are footnoted, and they are all associated with the organization and thus are not sufficient to establish notability. Those non-independent sources are the only ones that have been utilized in this article since it was created in November 2009 (apart from a "reading list" you provided of articles you apparently haven't seen yourself). I am amazed at the energy that has gone into defending this article by editors who haven't lifted a finger to improve it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the complete opposite of what you claim appears to be true. I, in fact, have done the research.  What have you done here except for nominate articles for deletion solely because you don't like it?  Please feel free to respond with more distracting false assumptions, accusations, and anything else you can do to avoid the burden of proof.  All of the sources are not associated with the organization, as myself and others have repeatedly informed you.  For some reason, you don't seem capable of doing the necessary research.  Instead, all we get are false accusations and false assumptions of bad faith about other editors.  Amazing!  You nominated this article for deletion solely because you DON'T LIKE IT because Tony Santiago once edited it several years ago.  You should not even be allowed on AfD. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I look forward to seeing your research reflected in the article. The link you provided above is some kind of biography website, and it appears to not be a verifiable or reliable source, and neither is it a nontrivial mention. But we'll let the closing administrator decide. As for Tony Santiago, your argument is really with the closing administrator who deleted it. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with this nonsense? The link I provided is an online version of the published entry from It is not a "biography website" and it has already been verified as a reliable source.  You seem to either not understand what has been said or what is being said or are just plain confused.  There are additional secondary sources in the further reading section supporting the notability of ANSO.  To quote the U.S. Navy: "The organization contributes significantly to strengthening overall diversity efforts and includes membership by active duty, reserve, and retired officers and enlisted, as well as civilian employees of the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine...ANSO has been a partner in the Navy’s efforts to increase diversity at all ranks..."Organizations like ANSO help promote diversity and positive human relations in the Navy, which strengthens the Navy as a whole. It also recognizes people who are helping to promote cultural awareness, which builds morale..."  Commands are encouraged to support the Association of Naval Services Officers (ANSO), which recently completed 25 years of service to the Navy and its Hispanic community of officers, enlisted and civilians." Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * is a routine announcement of a "professional development and training consortium," and I don't see it as the significant coverage required by WP:ORG. The biography website, even if an RS, is a passing mention in a biography of the secretary of the navy. You can scream and holler and accuse, but that won't make the subject of this article notable. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of the U.S. Navy (Lt. Stephanie Miller, Diversity Directorate, Chief of Naval Personnel) as published in the Navy News Service, not a professional development and training consortium. I'm getting the distinct sense that you don't understand how to recognize a reliable source.  The notability of the organization is supported by the secondary source news coverage in the further reading section and in the footnotes.  The significance and importance of this organization in the history of Hispanic-U.S. military relations is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source, but what I question is the depth of coverage. I'm sure this is a fine organization, but just not getting the amount of coverage required for a separate article. By the way, to address a point you raised earlier: no, I don't like this article. It is a list of officers, and not much else. If this is as significant an organization as is claimed, it deserves a better article. This is an awful article, which I think is reflected in the lack of sufficient sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has more coverage, particularly in U.S. government documents related to the military. Right now, we have an assertion of historical importance of this 30 year old organization in a published book (Contemporary Hispanic Biography), and three news sources (Hispanic Times Magazine, The San Diego Union, Navy News Service) which is enough for a small article on the subject.  A temporary merge and redirect to Hispanics in the United States Navy is also acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good solution. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is one alternative, but it is messy because the organization represents not just the Navy but the Marine Corps, Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine. So it may not be accurate.  I think there is enough notability to let the article stand where it is and expand. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be referenced in other relevant articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it can stay here and expand. I've just added another reference. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage, to the extent it exists, is about individual people who happen to be members. Not the organization. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * False. Of the 12 sources in the article, more than six are about and focused on the group.  There are far more available that have not yet been added.  Furthermore, the rest of the sources not only cover individual members, but assert the significance and importance of the organization in the source itself.  Notability has been established and is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 17:54, 30 March 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.