Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USCG Station Montauk


 * 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. Courcelles 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

USCG Station Montauk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable minor Coast Guard station; no assertion of notability in article; no WP:RS that are secondary; prod was contested on the basis that it was one of the units that responded to the TWA 800 recovery, however, notability cannot be conveyed by participation in a single incident, and so fails WP:GNG. — Chromancer  talk/cont 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - First of all, being a United States Coast Guard Station is an assertion of notability, hence nobody has even suggested this has notability issues since its creation almost 3 years ago in 2007. Secondly, it easily passes WP:NOTABILITY as it has significant coverage by very reliable sources such as the New York Times. .  The United States Coast Guard has a very long and detailed history of the station long before it moved to its present location in 1955. --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES don't help.--S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a bunch of links from the WP:AADD essay (non-guideline) page? As you seem to value that essay, it also mentions WP:VAGUEWAVE.  Care to explain how you feel there isn't significant coverage?--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. What our colleague here means to say is that the bare fact that something is a Coast Guard station does not mean it has inherent notability, and neither does the age of the article mean it has encyclopedic value. As you might imagine, in order to keep this article, there's going to have to be some sort of assertion that it meets WP:GNG, and the sources you've put forward are of marginal local interest. Just because something has been covered in secondary sources doesn't mean it meets WP:N. — Chromancer  talk/cont 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Another option would be to merge and redirect to Montauk. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I would think any official United States military establishment would warrant an article, especially one which is active and performing coastal navigation duties. -OberRanks (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a permanent US military establishment. I do consider such as intrinsically or necessarily notable, and even if someone does not choose to do that, there are sources for this one in particular .    DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 15 September 2010 (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.