Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles M. Price Support Center

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. There doesn't seem to be a question that there are sources covering the subject. But there is no consensus that (a) the sources aren't sufficient, or (b) the failure to insert the sources into the article warrants deletion now. Mkativerata (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles M. Price Support Center

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROD for "I did not find a single reliable source offering any more than trivial coverage of the subject. Fails to meet WP:GNG." User:DGG deprodded for "All army bases are considered notable."

I am nominating this article for deletion as, despite being an army base, it is not notable.

I checked again using Google, News, Scholar, Books, and LexisNexis, still nothing but the most trivial of coverage. Odie5533 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The place does exist and being an inclusionist is worth keeping for reference. scope_creep (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think being an Army base does make it notable. Chris (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: unless this article gets referenced fast, it needs to go. It needs a lot more than that as well, but even stubs need to be verifiable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there is nothing slanderous, there is no need for it to get sources "fast." It's easily verifiable.--Oakshade (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual army base and it has received significant coverage from independent sources, which is no surprise. [1][2][3][4] Even with apparent civilian use, it's received coverage.[5][6][7]--Oakshade (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable, as shown by the links in Oakshade's !vote. Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An army base is functionally akin to a town. There is no question that the base exists. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.