Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SE-5

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SE-5

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:FRINGE. While this gets some ghits, most are commercial in nature (and note the spam links in the article.) Doesn't seem to meet overall notability guidelines per fringe. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article as a redirect to Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5. User:Donparis has since changed it to the state is is today. I concur that the article as it stands should not be a Wikipedia article and support the deletion.--Ndunruh (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When doing a search for the SE5 in Wikipedia, one is given several choices. Many of those choices are related to the Royal Aircraft Factory as it should be. However one of the choices is SE-5 Radionics. My article is much more accurate and descriptive of what that means and how it came to be. It is only logical to have a separate article that relates to what the user is searching for. If a user is searching for S.E.5. they will find the aircraft factory however the SE-5 Radionics instrument is very well known through out the world and people should be able to find it and learn more about its history.User:Donparis --Donparis (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with teh SE-5 page being about the radionics instrument. It just needs to fit wikipedia standards. It looks like you're trying to do just that and I encourage you to continue.--Ndunruh (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I apologize for my beginning as this is my first Wiki article (but not my last!) I am a total newbie to this but I am finding it very exciting! I will work it over some more and see what you think.

My first attempt was really just an experiment to see how it all worked. I have been reading the guidelines and getting a better picture of how and why Wikipedia works.

--Donparis (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be largely promotional (check the website). Don Paris, if you are the same person as the website operator, please understand that articles and edits you make shouldn't be about you or your company. Take a look at this user essay explaining why. Why not try editing some subjects which interest you but where you are not closely connected to the subject. Wikipedia can be very rewarding as a hobby, but it will become very frustrating to edit as a vocation. Please keep all this in mind. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.