Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Car Brands to Australia


 * 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. Punkmorten 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Car Brands to Australia
Is a list of all 2 new types of cars that are being exported to Australia in 2006 a notable list or article? I think it falls under the category of indiscriminate lists of information. Metros232 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete silly, frivolous article. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Completley pointless, violates WP:V among others.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see the use of this article especially as it is really referring to models rather than brands. Both Fiat and Dodge are brands that have had fairly long histories in the Australian market. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as per reasoning of Capitalistroadster.-- Longhair\talk 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but I question KojiDude's logic. Verifying whether something as large and obvious as cars are being exported to Australia seems as if it would be easy, so I by no means see how this is not verifiable. Imban 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that there is nothing in the article that verifies the information, like citations or ect.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per comments above -- Chuq 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep if changed Jeffklib 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to? Metros232 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, As per Capitalistroadster and the nominator, there's no need for this article. James086Talk 23:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Incoherent topic. --Elonka 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom and my "three strike" rule. I think three tags to Wikify, recategorize, and link constitute a rogue article.--WaltCip 13:17, 27 October 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.