Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AACP


 * 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The result was '''Withdrawn nomination with all "delete" votes rescinded. John Reaves (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AACP
A disambig with nothing but redlinks. Feel free to recreate it if any of those actually have articles. Until then, it feels WP:HOAXish. Just H 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I rescind my nomination, it was cleanuped up a little and it wasn't a Hoax. Sorry, my mistake here. Just H 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete I agree that it feels like WP:HOAX, but either way there is no notability for a disamb page with no articles to disambiguate. JCO312 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notibility as nothing is noteable to have its own article yet!--Dacium 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacking only "Approved Acronym Creation Permit". Pomte 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak keep. While Eastmain has done a great job, the question remains whether those associations are notable and can extend beyond stubs. Pomte 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a disambig page consisting only of red links is useless. J I P  | Talk 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to very weak delete because some of the red links are now gone. J I P  | Talk 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - what's the point in a disambig page if there are no articles to disambiguate? - Iotha 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to keep, now that a user has started articles on the matter. My worry was that the articles the page linked to wouldn't be created, therefore making the page useless. - Iotha 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to Keep The removal of the redlinks changed my mind, with multiple articles linked, I think it's valid. JCO312 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the AACP associations are national associations of the U.S., and probably notable. Would anyone care to create an article about one or more of the groups with names beginning "American Academy" or "American Association"? --Eastmain 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Although a disambiguation page consisting wholly or primarily of redlinks is obviously not optimal, it's certainly not useless: It can certainly answer the question "what might this (in this instance) set of initials mean in this context" when someone comes across an unfamiliar reference. Deleting this would delete valid, useful information without in any way benefitting the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In that case, every single acronym could be copy and pasted from Acronym Finder and related sites. Perhaps merge and redirect to List of acronyms and initialisms: A? Red links should be verified somehow so we know these things actually exist. Pomte 15:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I created some articles that were formerly red links, and verified everything on the list. Advanced Airborne Command Post turned out to have an existing article at Boeing E-4, for example. --Eastmain 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: If there are existing articles that may be called "AACP", there is a need for this disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neelix (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: I apologize for not signing. I wasn't attempting to write anonymously.  I just forgot to sign. Neelix 20:05, 25 January 2007 (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.