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.
unsourced, appears to be an adverstisement
—Loginnigol (
talk) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete – non-notable company fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:GNG. Simply can't find sufficient coverage.
sst✈(discuss) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – they are a significant manufacturer of armoured vehicles - e.g. the Metropolitan Police in London has a fleet (see
this), they have a joint venture with Chrysler for the
Jeep J8 (see
this), and the Belgian military have just announced they are buying a fleet of 108 (
this, sorry in French) -
Aegoceras (
talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I do agree that in this case, unless improved,
WP:TNT could apply, until such time as a truly encyclopedic article could be written.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I completely agree that at present the article is poor and while I can't cite them, I'm sure it fails to meet Wikipedia standards. It certainly appears to have been hurridly pulled together by somebody connected to the company. That said, Jankel are a sizeable concern, and certainly prominent in defence/security as outlined by
Aegoceras. I've been spending some time recently tidying up the
SC Group article (a similar sized private British company), and am happy to consider doing the same to the Jankel article. I'll have a look around this weekend and see what Google turns up and if I think I can do a decent job, I'll dedicate some time to sorting it out and bringing it up to standard. As I'm quite new to Wiki and this sort of thing is very new to me..., if it's deleted before I make a decision (hopefully next week some time), can it be restored, or must I start again?
UndateableOne (
talk) 13:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello @
UndateableOne: If you want, you can copy the copy the current article into your sandbox, that way if it gets deleted and if you do find the needed in-depth coverage from independent and
reliable sources you may use it as a template and improve it there until it meets our policies.--
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 11:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better which this article would seriously need. Notifying tagger
Crystallizedcarbon and also automobiles user
Davey2010.
SwisterTwistertalk 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I found a few sources
[1] but it's impossible to cite the sections, Quite honestly it'd be better off deleted and rewritten. –
Davey2010Talk 08:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There are some sources, but I do not see the required in depth coverage, and in its current state the article is not valid. If no new sources are found I would recommend deleting it, but first, I would like to give a chance to the editors that recommend keeping it to find some additional in depth coverage to justify its inclusion.--
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Don't mean to sound like a dick but editors have had a week and 4 days to find sources .... –
Davey2010Talk 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
And? Oftentimes delete voters never even bother to look for sources. Thus this becomes one of the biggest issues with AfD's since there is way less work involved in voting delete over attempting to fix and/or save an article. AfD's have become enormous time sinks where very little gets accomplished. --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 08:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per significant sources uncovered by Aegoceras. Thanks! --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 08:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
azuki (
talk·contribs·email) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep based on sources listed by
Aegoceras. As I mentioned above (but lack the skills to link directly to - sorry), I'm happy to work on the article and will start by integrating some citations in the New Year. I have pasted the current text into my Sandbox just in case deletion occurs before I get started.
UndateableOne (
talk) 10:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I beleive the sources found by Aeegoceras are sufficient to push this into notability. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 22:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, moving from delete, due to sources found by Aegoceras. However, the article still needs TNTing.
sst✈discuss 17:23, 26 December 2015 (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.