Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Mutual Aid Association


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Navy Mutual Aid Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has had three years in which to improve, and it still has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   03:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, without prejudice if someone comes up with sources. I'm on the fence here, on the one hand, this is a 130 year old organization that has a very credible claim for significance with more than 100,000 members/customers. On the other hand, I did quite a bit of research yesterday wanting to address the PROD, and couldn't find anything of substance to address the PROD reason. Sure, several articles on Navy Times, but they are more like "don't forget to register" type of things. Then several other press releases on other sites, and a few business profiles, Forbes, Businessweek, etc. I was surprised that the various "official" biographies of Richard W. Mies do not mention his role in this organization, suggesting a lack of importance. I would have to agree with the nominator that as it looks, this article cannot meet WP:V based on reliable, third-party sources. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This Richard W. Mies bio mentions it. (about 3/5 down page, search (space)Mies). Dru of Id (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A longstanding well-known aspect of US military culture.  This organization, and its counterpart the Army and Air Force Mutual Aid Association, are legitimately historical organizations.  GNews has 100+ hits going back to 1887, GBooks shows about 3,000 hits. There are a lot of paywalls in the way, but one could start with this succinct explanation of the association's roots and purpose, from a 1921 issue of the United States Naval Medical Bulletin. (On the other hand, I do think that both articles could stand some winnowing: we don't need the list of all the different policies they sell.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your arguments appear to be along the lines of WP:NOBLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Storng keep the obvious source is http://www dot navymutual dot org which can't be put into hte article because the wiki complains spuriously about spam for some reason.Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While verifiable, that source is not independent of the subject.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Scale and long history indicate clear ability to meet wp:notability. Based on scale and long history, failure to have an article on this in wikipedia would be a gap/shortcoming. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notable by Google Books in many books: Search books. The article was initially crippled when the original author expanded it with several "copyvio" paragraphs, so naturally, it was severely gutted back to a hollow stub, which might have demoralized the early editors to steer clear of re-expanding the text. However, the Navy Mutual Aid Association has been well-known among U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard families for over 50 years now, long after World War II. I spent the hour adding 3 footnote sources to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (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.