Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Army

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 delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Army

have no idea what this is after reading the one-sentence article. Wolfman 19:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Its a company that makes Airsoft-style replica guns. They're just one of many small/medium-sized companies in that market. Not notable. I did add the wikilink to Airsoft in the article so others reviewing it would have some background. Chuck 21:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not establish what it is. I don't learn what an AEG is or why I need to know it. Geogre 21:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. — Gwalla | Talk 01:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Airsoft. Not sure about notability, but this substub is hardly understandable. Since it's just one sentence and the same information is given in Airsoft in a more understanable context, I would redirect it there. In addition to everything else, the substub is factually inaccurate. The company's website says that Classical Army is a brand, not company name. The company's actual name is Yick Fung Industrial International Ltd.. Andris 14:48, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect: WP is not a product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't explain anything, advertisement, as above says, Wikipedia isn't a catalog. Luigi30 13:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just found this on Dead-End pages and put on VFD; then saw that a vote had taken place last Sept, but article is still here. Sc147 01:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be a brand/advert, if its requested back and the author wants to put more in that makes it not so..fine max rspct 01:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This doesn't appear on any VfD daily log pages. (It wouldn't for September, of course.) I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution, though I was awfully tempted to mark it {{delete}} based on the above. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I remember an article very similar to this one on VfD; mistitled, no-context article about paintball equipment. IIRC, it was Deleted, and so should this one be. android↔talk 05:29, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

~Delete I agree and have nothing further to add. Oliver Keenan 17:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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.