Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalAir

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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DigitalAir

This article is for a fictitious company that Novell uses in their training software. Originally proded by me but removed by page creator without explanation. Do we really need articles for every fictitious item in a company's training materials? Seems like Novellcruft to me. Delete. --Hetar 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To answer the nominator's question, no.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article may include information about a fictitous company, but it does exist in a way. Novell provides trainees with self study material, that includes information of this company. If it was completely fictitous I wouldn't have spent 3 months being an administrator on this training network, and developing install solutions such as those under "network setup". I am not done with this article, I had left it incomplete because I was relativly tired seeing as it was 2:00am. Note- I had deleted the original prod, for I had changed the line from fictitous company, as that suggested this does not exist at all. I jad changed the line to "a training environment created by Novell, inc." I am sorry if this conflicts with your thoughts, but that is why this thread is here, for debate. I will expand on this article as the day goes on to help other get a complete understanding for it. Just a though- why don't we consider merging the article with ceritfied novell administratorColonelpanic89 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; this topic might deserve a paragraph or two at Certified Novell Administrator, as long as we have that article, under a "Training" section. The technical specs are worthless unless you're actually taking the course, and the level of detail is almost certainly original research. Melchoir 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Melchoir and nom. Hirudo 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - The information is important, but I'm not sure if it merits its own article. Jraynes 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete maybe it's kind of useful, but it is sorta Novellcruft and it's not that encyclopedic M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (As a former CNE, I still don't think this is appropriate here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.