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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USNA Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not really that notable. Organization is not much different than "Jewish Harvard Alumni" or "Princeton Wiccan Alumni" or any other offshoot group. Organization is weakly documented with most citations from its own site. A fairly small group BTW. Not really that notable. Student7 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this historical compilation does not exist elsewhere on the internet. 7 of 11 documented references from mainstream US media seem to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. --Lyle19107 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easily able to find significant amount of independent reliable secondary source coverage from (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it covered the whole US Navy that would be different, but covering only a single training institution with a membership of only about 300 makes it too insignificant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Clearly satisfies WP:NOTE, check out fifty (50) results in search of books. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly note different names the group has operated under. Plenty of reliable sources available. Being the first US military group before DADT was repealed would also suggest obvious notability. Insomesia (talk) 12:30, 9 November 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.