- 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 redirect to Fort Devens. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center
- Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 04:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It was subject to closure under the last round of BRAC, and there is information on it, contrary to what you say.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here are two sources that will back the above assertion up, as I could find more but want this discussion to maintain whether or not this is notable or not. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The first source is a primary source, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability. The second does not provide any significant coverage of the Center. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep': Plenty of sources to establish notability.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 09:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- First source does not provide significant coverage, as does not address the topic in detail (the entire article, minus captions, is one sentence). The rest are primary sources, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: I originally closed this but looking at the sources I'm not convinced the centre's notable, So feel this does merit a discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It is notable because it survived brac, which normally closes the base. Frmorrison ( talk) 03:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Surviving closure is not a test for notability -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 05:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: The sources don't fill me with much confidence so relisting again, If an admin WOULD prefer to close please feel free to do so.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Ordinarily I would think a verified US military installation would be easily established as notable, but in this case I share some of Davey2010's trepidation. I am unable to find any sources--whether primary or secondary--that clearly spell out just what and where this facility is. Why are there so few references that mention it? Is it at Fort Devens? (I couldn't find a mention at the Devens website.) -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Other than one source above I couldn't seem to find the center mentioned in any of them, Also Other than the article I've found absolutely nothing on Google neither, I'm somewhat lost as to why the above sources were posted if they don't mention the center anyway ? – Davey2010 • (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The various articles about BRAC, above, do mention this facility as having been targeted to be "realigned", whatever that meant, exactly. And the local paper photo does provide independent confirmation that this exists. My problem, as I said above, is that I couldn't find any basic info about this: a location, a function, etc. You'd ordinarily expect to find something official somewhere on .mil, and the absence of such official information puzzles me. In the meantime, however I have turned some additional articles from the Lowell Sun that mention this facility in connection with BRAC and the demise of the 94th Regional Readiness Command. [5] [6] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Simply because something is presumed to be notable does not make it so. This subject has very little primary sourcing and in order for inclusion it has to be notable and have proper sources to verify its notability. This per WP:GNG would alone fail. Therefore I feel we have no other choice but to delete. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fort Devens insufficient coverage for a stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in depth coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I've listed this at WP:MIL. CesareAngelotti ( talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fort Devens if that is where it is located. The information on this article should be included in the Fort Devens article if there are reliable sources to support the inclusion there. The article in question, by itself, is not notable; however it could contribute to the knowledge of Fort Devens in a minor way. Cuprum17 ( talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- redirect, or delete, not notable - Nabla ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- redirect or merge into Fort Devens per User:Bejnar. AdventurousMe ( talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (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.
- 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 redirect to Fort Devens. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center
- Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 04:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It was subject to closure under the last round of BRAC, and there is information on it, contrary to what you say.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here are two sources that will back the above assertion up, as I could find more but want this discussion to maintain whether or not this is notable or not. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The first source is a primary source, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability. The second does not provide any significant coverage of the Center. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep': Plenty of sources to establish notability.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 09:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- First source does not provide significant coverage, as does not address the topic in detail (the entire article, minus captions, is one sentence). The rest are primary sources, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: I originally closed this but looking at the sources I'm not convinced the centre's notable, So feel this does merit a discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It is notable because it survived brac, which normally closes the base. Frmorrison ( talk) 03:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Surviving closure is not a test for notability -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 05:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: The sources don't fill me with much confidence so relisting again, If an admin WOULD prefer to close please feel free to do so.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Ordinarily I would think a verified US military installation would be easily established as notable, but in this case I share some of Davey2010's trepidation. I am unable to find any sources--whether primary or secondary--that clearly spell out just what and where this facility is. Why are there so few references that mention it? Is it at Fort Devens? (I couldn't find a mention at the Devens website.) -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Other than one source above I couldn't seem to find the center mentioned in any of them, Also Other than the article I've found absolutely nothing on Google neither, I'm somewhat lost as to why the above sources were posted if they don't mention the center anyway ? – Davey2010 • (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The various articles about BRAC, above, do mention this facility as having been targeted to be "realigned", whatever that meant, exactly. And the local paper photo does provide independent confirmation that this exists. My problem, as I said above, is that I couldn't find any basic info about this: a location, a function, etc. You'd ordinarily expect to find something official somewhere on .mil, and the absence of such official information puzzles me. In the meantime, however I have turned some additional articles from the Lowell Sun that mention this facility in connection with BRAC and the demise of the 94th Regional Readiness Command. [5] [6] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Simply because something is presumed to be notable does not make it so. This subject has very little primary sourcing and in order for inclusion it has to be notable and have proper sources to verify its notability. This per WP:GNG would alone fail. Therefore I feel we have no other choice but to delete. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fort Devens insufficient coverage for a stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in depth coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I've listed this at WP:MIL. CesareAngelotti ( talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fort Devens if that is where it is located. The information on this article should be included in the Fort Devens article if there are reliable sources to support the inclusion there. The article in question, by itself, is not notable; however it could contribute to the knowledge of Fort Devens in a minor way. Cuprum17 ( talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- redirect, or delete, not notable - Nabla ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- redirect or merge into Fort Devens per User:Bejnar. AdventurousMe ( talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (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.