Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICS 219


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

ICS 219

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. No obvious good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Products.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if this is enough to establish notability (I don't think it is personally) but I found a few sources for this a training manual, an aid plan. There are other various official government documents but again this does not mean it is notable on the basis I have not yet found significant secondary coverage. EvilxFish (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: A form can be notable, but it doesn't look like this one is. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: No evidence of any significance or notability for a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (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.