Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Search And Rescue Task Force

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States Search And Rescue Task Force

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

Only source available discussing this organization is the organization's own very dated web page. This group is likely a rump brigade, and is therefore not notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 03:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarifying: no sources cited, nor could any third party sources be found after reasonable attempts at searching for them (therefore invoking WP:NRVE). --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what's a "rump brigade"? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers five states. I would say that's notable enough. And no, I have no idea what a rump brigade is either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Wikipedia used to have an article on rump brigades. Rump brigades are paramilitary organizations that claim to be recognized by a government, when in actuality, they aren't. And by not-notable, I mean, there are no references to this organization actually doing anything, except for what it says on their own website. The only source saying that they cover five states is their own website. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. And the article is copied from this page of their website, which is why it's so promotional in tone. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query - anyone know how "independent" this book would be? Either way, probably not sufficient on its own. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published. Amazon lets anyone and their grandmother do it if you pay the small fee first. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I'm thinking that the assessment of rump brigade, given the definition, may be erroneous. This said, A SAR brigade can be notable, but this does not appear to have any references, and that alone kills it: a SAR brigade for whatever they do, still must qualify for inclusion here based on our notability guidelines. This one lacks them. Also, the page feels like an "about us" page, which is not necessarily what we exist for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 8 September 2012 (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.