This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryphotos.net[edit]

• Moderate traffic site ~50,000 Alexa. Devoted to minor details, this entry can only be verified and edited by forum members. For example: "There were a few controversies which plagued the Militaryphotos.net forums, one of which involved the use of extravagant and incredibly large signatures..." delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article is a valid description of a real web site, keep. Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "message bord was in clinical death state for whole 16 minutes." - such earth shattering events are surely encyclopedic! Seriously though, delete as forumcruft, and how did it survive since July 2004? the wub "?/!" 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An Alexa ranking down there is too low to look notable to me, especially if the site has no other major claims to notability. I shudder to think of some of the other sites in that range we'd have to consider notable if that was a criteria. --Icelight 19:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Low alexa rank. 11,000 members/39 currently online, well below my notability threshold of 50,000/300. Article full of trivia. --Carnildo 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the original author of the article, I have some insight into why the article should be kept.

• For one thing, although the site has low ranking in Alexa from total site visits, the photo albums, video content, and original forum posts are linked from other sites directly, or replicated altogether on other military sites.

• Militaryphotos.net is a major primary source for military information from retired military, active duty army/navy/air force, and private military contractors currently in action in Iraq.

• The History Channel has used footage which was originally submitted to militaryphotos/militaryvideos.net in its television documentaries.

• Militaryphotos.net was the originator of the Finnish military abuse scandal, rivalling the Abu Ghraib scandal in the US in its media coverage and impact on military policy.

• Militaryphotos.net was the originator of the images discovered by a Militaryphotos.net member of a secret Soviet space-based laser battle station. This is a major discovery made at Militaryphotos.net and this is highly noteworthy.

It it the purpose of Wikipedia to present articles on noteworthy topics. For the four points listed above, I would argue that Militaryphotos.net is a very noteworthy website. I expect those who voted to reconsider their vote. I apologize for the crap that was also added to the article. I removed that stuff to make the article more wikiworthy. Carnildo, it's unfortunate that you checked the forum usage at such a time. The forum averages 300 members online. --G3pro 15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep --Agamemnon2 14:57, 21 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.