This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The AfD was listed for twenty-one days, during which time five participants partook of the discussion; three argued for delete, inasmuch as the topic was unencyclopedic, and two argued for keep, suggesting that the article should be expanded such that the focus is on the notable office and not on the non-notable internship program. I rewrote and moved the article (and concomitantly changed my delete to keep), and I think the article in its present form addresses the concerns of those who, upon my nomination, supported delete. There was not, in any case, a consensus for deletion, and, whilst relisting may have been appropriate, I think the article sufficiently asserts and demonstrates notability, and I do not imagine that relisting would have served any purpose. Should anyone disagree with this assessment, he/she should, of course, feel free to contest my non-admin closure, either with a renom or at
deletion review.
Joe 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The AfD was listed for twenty-one days, during which time five participants partook of the discussion; three argued for delete, inasmuch as the topic was unencyclopedic, and two argued for keep, suggesting that the article should be expanded such that the focus is on the notable office and not on the non-notable internship program. I rewrote and moved the article (and concomitantly changed my delete to keep), and I think the article in its present form addresses the concerns of those who, upon my nomination, supported delete. There was not, in any case, a consensus for deletion, and, whilst relisting may have been appropriate, I think the article sufficiently asserts and demonstrates notability, and I do not imagine that relisting would have served any purpose. Should anyone disagree with this assessment, he/she should, of course, feel free to contest my non-admin closure, either with a renom or at
deletion review.
Joe 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
