Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VADS (Vulcan Anti-Aircraft Automatic Cannon Defence System)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 03:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

VADS (Vulcan Anti-Aircraft Automatic Cannon Defence System)[edit]

non notable --Melaen 15:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and continue to clean up/expand. Modern anti-aircraft weapons are sophisticated and expensive to develop, hence practically all are notable. Kappa 15:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3000 rounds per minute is notable. Klonimus 15:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any military weapon that has made it into production is inherently notable 66.94.94.154 17:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Physchim62 17:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this would not be logical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with 66.94.94.154. Plus it was widely deployed. Plus they spent a lot of money on it. It's even been mentioned by Tom Clancey... I'd like to see a more tractable title, though. ---Isaac R 19:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I renamed this to Vulcan Air Defense System. DJ Clayworth 20:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. James F. (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought this was going to be a Star Trek thing. Sadness. ;-) 23skidoo 23:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real defence equipment. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable weaponry. Sjakkalle 07:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.JuntungWu 12:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.