Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet


 * 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 of the debate was closed with a speedy delete conclusion. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Fleet
This page, as seen below, was nominated for deletion in December, partly because the group is unnotable and partly because it read like an advertisment. The article has been recreated and speedy-deleted twice since then I believe, and yet still it's here again. I don't see how it's become more notable in a month, and it still reads like an ad to me. It does not cite good sources justifying its place here and I consider it to be vanity. I could be considered an inclusionist, but it appears to me that the majority of editors are not and so there is no justification for EF having a page of Wikipedia. - Hayter 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete again. I don't know what's going on with this page, but it's clearly not notable. And what's up with this message at the top of the article: 'Nomination for deletion of this article as stated in the template below is invalid, and should be ignored. Matter has been closed and any further discrediting/deletion attempts will not be tolerated.'? - squibix 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They will not tolerate us? Ooh, I'm shaking in my little space boots. Delete for the Nth time, protect against re-creation and block the users responsible. --Agamemnon2 00:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and protect against re-creation. Blocking only required if future problems occur with user.

'''The re-posting of this deletion nomination here was an error on my part. I was unaware there was a seperate template for articles that have been nominated before. The current afd vote for this article is located here.''' - Hayter 23:13, 22 January 2006 (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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Expansion Fleet
This seems to be nothing more than self-promotion by the group's creator. If EF is as successful as he seems to indicate then perhaps an article on it would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, but I don't see it coming from this and as such, would recommend a deletion. It's very badly written and inconsistant in its presentation. Perhaps one day someone can make a better article on the subject but at the moment, it's just trash on the server. Hayter 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) * Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this, and neither have my Trekkie friends. As a former purveyor of online RPGs, I'm impressed by something that's lasted since 2001, but hey, Maverick Hunter: The Technology Wars has been going since '96, and we still don't have an article--because we don't deserve one.  Neither does this.  Delete.  Marblespire 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Agnte 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:52, 22 December 2005 (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.