Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammer (1900 automobile)


 * 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. No prejudice towards recreation from User:Vauxford/sandbox/Hammer (1900 automobile) once notability has been established. Yunshui 雲 水 08:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hammer (1900 automobile)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dweller. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

*Delete as per the above - Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, although of possible interest to historians of oz autos, without more/stronger sources a standalone article is not warranted. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:GNG entirely. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * keep - Vauxford has kindly said they'll try and source it I don't really see a reason to delete at this point, I don't know whether this should be moved to his userspace or draft so i'll leave that up to the deciding closer, Keep for now anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it's been copied to draftspace deleting this would then mean all previous revisions to the article will be deleted which is something I have an issue with so personally I feel this should still be kept, If no sources are found (or they're inadequate) then we can always reafd but until then IMHO it should be kept. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, it should be recreated, following the appropriate review, so no history is lost. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Half Delete/Half Keep I already found two books dedicated to Australian Automobiles such as South Australian Cars: 1881-1942 and Aussie Cars 1896-1986 (Which is where the text on the article is sourced from). It won't take long for me to track and obtain these books and find out if there any other pictures or info on them. The South Australian Cars book seem quite promising seeing that where the automobile was based in. I say keep the article for a bit longer, if I can't find anything different then I call for delete. --Vauxford (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. No-one wants to delete anything that is notable. When do you think the books will arrive? If there's some in-depth coverage, you can improve the article and we'll probably all switch to keep. If there's no mention, or just passing reference to it, it'll be deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Depends, it likely won't be this month, Even if the articles is deleted, it will be easy to restore the text or create it again. --Vauxford (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I just created a draft page for it. It won't be instant finding sources for this so it fine if the article does end up getting deleted. I always liked finding out info on obscure automobiles. There a lot of stubs related to Australian automobiles created by a user; G64Clayton which he likely sourced them from those books. There a small chance some would include pictures in the books which are in PD and the user probably didn't know how to scan them. --Vauxford (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The draft should be deleted. If you find sources, we need a deletion review to agree to the article being recreated so we don't lose proper attribution. Please request a deletion of the draft. Drop me a line if you find anything, I'll be happy to help if needed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Snow close suggested --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:53, 22 January 2019 (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.