Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Battle Command System
- 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 Keep, tagging for rewrite per Dhartung. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Army Battle Command System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Full of buzzword and properly formatted, but reads just like commercial spam nonetheless and lacks a proper, neutral assertion of notability. Circeus (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a reasonable description of this government program, if a little terse. It's a US Army Program of Record, so it's obviously not commercial spam. Anyone going into a C2 situation with the US Army is going to have to deal with this software, so it's at least as notable as any of the "sexier" but obscure tanks, ships, guns, or rockets that have pages on Wikipedia. I agree it could use some cleanup and additional descriptions of its components, however. --Sam (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but tag for rewrite as it's an awful regurgitation of some brochure or whatnot. Probably public ___domain, though, so not a copyvio. This is a pretty key 21st century army program. --Dhartung | Talk 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind a speedy close, but reading the article directly, you would be hard-pressed to know that. Circeus (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "KEEP" This is actually a good, succinct description of real, current programs, some of which I've worked on and/or with as an Army officer and as a defense contractor engineer. What's needed are additional articles on some of the component systems mentioned.Chasritt (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (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.