Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater security


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Underwater security

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is basically a collection of essay like passages that were made into an article at the same time as the AquaShield Diver Detection Sonar page that was deleted as spam, presumably as a way of justifying that article. I cleaned the page up, but having removed all the promotional links and POV text, I don't think it justifies it being an article, it could be merged into something else at best. Mfield (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just removed a significant portion from the article as a copyright violation from, but this *might have been wrong*: Are sources from whitehouse.gov automatically in the public domain? I mentioned it on the article's talk page, but it might be important for the this discussion. --Amalthea (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything printed by the American federal government is public domain. My tax dollars paid for that web page dammitt! Beeblbrox (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless of course it's "redacted for reasons of national security" Beeblbrox (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I restored it, FWIW. --Amalthea (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete an OR personal essay. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be synthesis, original research, etc...Beeblbrox (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worthwhile topic name. No longer spam, but definitely poorly written, WP:SOFIXIT. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not as obvious to the rest of us how you propose to "fix it". If it is so simple, please go right ahead and fix it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want lessons in how to edit wikipedia, see here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok ok, I'll lay off the sarcasm if you will. My actual point was that I don't see how to undo a problem like this. If the article is WP:OR, how can we make it otherwise? Beeblbrox (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dodgy dossiers aside, I would think something covered on a white house page is going to have some basis in sourceable fact, don't you think? Even without that, is it realy a hard concept to believe that underwater security is a concept that exists? Surely all the systems listed under "Underwater Security Systems" were not made up by the author as part of a personal essay piece. Strip out the junk, source the factual information. MickMacNee (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR. I can see a version of this article stripped off of the WP:OR, but it wouldn't be more than half a sentence remaining nor would it be notable.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  04:45, 31 July 2008 (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.