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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiredawg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No claim of notability and NPOV (identified many months ago). Bongomatic 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs a little work, but notability clear. Term is commonly used in military service and is suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dlete - not notable enough. Buckshot06(prof) 11:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability and Wikipedia is not a directory of USAF job specialisations. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I agree with the naysayers here. I don't see any notability, and it's been tagged long enough. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added it to the [1] Military History project so I think it would be good to give a couple days to see if they have comments or fixes for the article. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also added a couple of inline citations from two article with extensive descriptions of the job categories included in the term "Wiredawg". ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia, for several reasons, primarly the lack of multiple, independant, reliable sources documenting the use of the term. While the two sources posted by ChildofMidnight (whose efforts to save the article I respect) demonstrate that the job descriptions are for actual positions in the United States Air Force, the term "wiredawg" and "cabledawg" do not appear in these, and no connection is demonstrated between the terms and the professions. The third source, a social networking site for people who self-identify as wiredawgs, is only used to prove that the social networking site exists (and that's all it could reliably be used for, in my opinion). Looking outside the article for sources: Google has 683 unique from 95,800 total hits for the search string [wiredawg OR wiredog], and 249 unique from 88,600 total for just [wiredawg]. However, the results are polluted by a number of personal web pages, forum usernames, or webpages containing the statement "Wire Dog item", which are all unrelated to the United States Air Force profession. Google News provides only one result, where the term wiredawg is the name of a form poster commenting on a news story. Books is nada, while Scholar has one hit, a thesis written by a student of the United States Air Force Institute of Technology. There are other problems with the artice: it appears to contain original research and unsourced speculation ("Currently, there is talk...", "It's been reported..."), and contains attempts to communicate with readers ("More information is needed, please update if as details are made known.") Long story short: The term Wiredawg exists, as slang to refer to people in a specific job role within the United States military. However, there are not enough reliable, published sources to produce a verifiable article on the subject, nor to demonstrate that people identified as wiredawgs because of their job role are more important or notable as a group than people given another nickname because of their profession. -- saberwyn 06:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well I suppose the article could be broken up and moved to "Voice Network Systems Technicians" and "Cable and Antenna Systems Technichians". Or should if be "Air Force Cable and Antenna Systems Technicians"? As far as I can tell they self identify as Wiredawgs, so I'm happy to go with their good judgement and group them together. And here I thought Bongo was always trying to consolidate! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 13 November 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.