Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Power Afghanistan


 * 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 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Task Force Power Afghanistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extremely irrelevant piece of non-notable information. Went to the PDF cited, and couldn't find "Task Force Power" or "FRAGO 10-213" when I ran a search. Might be made up as a hoax. Jcmcc (Talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Well, it's not a hoax. "Task Force Power" is an actual military project, and it's mentioned by defense.gov: {Exp Federal Inc., Chicago, Illinois, was awarded an $8,017,418 firm-fixed-price contract with options to meet the requirements of the congressionally mandated electrical safety program, “Task Force Power.” Work will be performed in Afghanistan with an estimated completion date of March 20, 2017.} More details about it are here. However, the fact still seems clear that this is just one military project out of many that has no significant notability. So, while I have no strong feelings on this, I recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I couldn't find much in the way of coverage to indicate it satisfies the GNG, except for what has been mentioned above and one or two other minor passing mentions (not all reliable sources, though). In this regard, I'd say it should probably be deleted, but I would be amenable to maybe including it in a parent article, if a suitable one could be identified. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a hoax but lacks the req'd coverage to justify its own article per WP:GNG. I agree that the information that is available might be usable in another article per AR's comment. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2015 (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.