Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASP

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 no consensus to delete. Do everything that doesn't need AFD first, then go ahead and nominate what's needed. Petros471 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASP

The "National Association of Staredown Professionals". Non-notable - the only mentions of it in Google are its own web page, this Wikipedia entry and a Craigslist posting. The NASP page originally redirected to Rockwell X-30 (the National Aero-Space Plane), the writer of this page has just dropped their content over the top of this. The redirects from N.a.s.p. and National Association of Staredown Professionals should be deleted, NASP should be reverted to redirect to the Rockwell X-30. --McGeddon 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's an association for this kind of thing? Seriously? Some people have too much time on their hands. Delete. --Elkman 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• If it used to be a redirect, revert and delete the other things that redirect to it per nom. (Technically, I don't think this belongs on AfD since the main request isn't a deletion, and the other two belong on WP:RFD, but I'm not sure where the request belongs, or if the nominator should just have been WP:BOLD.) Confusing Manifestation 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, good point, I didn't realise the revert issue until after I'd made the AfD call (the second half of my paragraph is an edit five minutes later). I should really have reverted it boldly and placed the content on National Association of Staredown Professionals, nominating that for deletion, but I won't confuse the issue by doing that now. --McGeddon 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to the version 2006-02-24 23:28:32 Willy Logan (redirect). Cheers. --Starionwolf 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• You guys clearly have too much time on your hands. Who are you to say what's notable? Keep it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.255.3 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has some notability guidelines for websites - generally speaking, your site needs to have been significant enough to have been mentioned in the press, to merit a full encyclopaedia entry of its own. --McGeddon 02:40, 15 June 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.