Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exercise Mountain Star

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.

Exercise Mountain Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable military exercise. Just 471 hits on internet and just 1 hit on Google News.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - no reason to delete this exercise. The North is becoming more strategically important, not less. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe for the USA, but not for the rest of the world...
    _talk 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Funny comment, since it was a Canadian exercise, not an American one. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last time I have often the idea that American and Canadian subjects are quicker regarded notable then subjects from other continents/countries. "The North" is then a rather subjective claim. For me, "The North" is Northern-Ireland. What a South-African, Indian or Australian editor regards as "The North" I don't know, but I guess something different then
        _talk 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Delete -
  WP:DOGBITESMAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Major military exercises can still be notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true; I've written an article on one myself. This exercise, however, wasn't major - it involved only two units operating from a single base. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1 gnews hit says it all. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having one Google news hit is not a reason for deletion; please see
  WP:GOOGLEHITS. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:GOOGLEHITS applies to google not google news. gnews is a good indicator of coverage in press. Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• There are more effective ways to determine if reliable sources can be found (i.e. to place "site:.... .com" after the search in question). Just because something is not in Google News does not mean that it is non-notable. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

instead of saying

• http://www.trentonian.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3324960
• http://cc-130j.ca/2011/parajumpers-jump-from-the-royal-canadian-air-force%E2%80%99s-newest-capability-the-cc-130j-hercules/ 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources I provided above. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I don't see those two as independent reliable sources. The second one is owned by Lookheed Martin, the aircrafts manufacturer. And you can expect the local newspaper from
    _talk 12:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'd say the newspaper is independent and reliable - but it doesn't demonstrate widespread coverage, that's for sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suspicion is based on the Dutch saying (in rough translation): whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.
        _talk 07:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete; in addition to the lack of
  notability, the article is improperly written, linking to offsite URLs instead of Wikipedia articles — which isn't in and of itself a deletion rationale, I know, but it often implies that the goal was to boost the other site's web traffic and/or Google ranking rather than to write a true encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable event. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly trivial. I'm not all that eager to say not indiscriminate as a reason at an AfD, but this is one case where it clearly applies. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (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.