Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eterniti Motors


 * 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   keep. Unanimous consensus to keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eterniti Motors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"This article is based solely on recycled press releases from one 'concept car'. A stillborn 'tuner company' on which we lack reliable sources fails to meet any Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability". Cheers! 118.92.203.57

I'm completing the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor, and have no personal opinion about the article. Reyk YO!  21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm assuming bad faith nomination by User:118.92.203.57 due to that editor following my edit history after being challenged (and now banned) for violations. I have no opinion about the article either. Widefox ; talk 12:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Many different third party references already in the article which go way beyond press release regurgitation being claimed. No references to support that the company is stillborn. BBC ran an article recently too: BBC News Warren (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - considering the BBC article (however brief). Widefox ; talk 03:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as above. NealeFamily (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep both on the merits & for the proposal history. --Lockley (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (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.