Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

company of questionable notability, most references are self references, article is of somewhat promotional tone. Wuh Wuz  Dat  20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated in pages discussion. I bring up other companies such as Manhattan Armor.


 * Most the references come from the official site for the reason being I thought it would be smart to show the wide variety of vehicles that can be heavily armored.


 * About the company being notable. It's just as notable as the rest of companies having to do with armored vehicles on wikipedia. It is highly popular in North America, Africa as well as the Middle East. Their company is based in Canada and Nigeria, supplying vehicles to government officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonraphael (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)  — Dillonraphael (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  He is also the creator of the article


 * Keep (or if it must be deleted, incubate/userfy). While I indicated on the talk page that AfD was a possibility, it appears that the article was nominated without any discussion of what can be done to improve the article. I still the best course for the article is improvement, not deletion. The independent sources aren't always lengthy (the Robb Report story covers three companies in a relatively-short article), but they do exist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all I ask for. If i'm not mistaken, wikipedia is a community built website. All I did was get the ball rolling. It allows others to contribute and update what needs to be fixed. I would be more then happy to fix the issues my self if some one can specifically point out the issues influencing the deletion of the page.

(Dillonraphael (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC))


 * It needs reliable third party sources (something more than blogs and the company's own website). It also needs to be far less promotional, there is a long quote in the current version which is little more than a sales pitch. Hairhorn (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is still a lot of third party sources that are reliable, The Robb Report for example. And to make things better I will remove the car list in hopes to make it less promotional in every ones eyes.
 * There is only one third party source that is not a blog, that is not a "lot". Hairhorn (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Dillonraphael (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)) When will the consensus come up with the final answer? I would like to remove the deletion tag. (Dillonraphael (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep, improve, re-list in six months if no further reliable sources have been added to article. Give people a chance to source things, please. --rahaeli (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the tag; it will be removed by the admin who closes this debate, AFDs usually last for a week but can go on longer if necessary. And to throw in my two cents the current version looks like a keep to me, although more sources are needed. Hairhorn (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The Robb Report article is the only thing close to a reliable source presented, that's far from "substantial coverage" (WP:GNG). If more sources are found the article could be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate or Delete, loose searching by INKAS armoured/armored reveals some sources, which may be useful.  Abductive  (reasoning) 12:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some weak sources.  .  Abductive  (reasoning) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not an obvious keep for me, but the addition of those sources (although weak like you said) make it a less obvious delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and improve - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources provided do not appear to pass WP:GNG. Snotty Wong   confabulate 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT A little after midnight on December 2, 2010, User:Dillonraphael moved INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing to Userpage:DillonRaphael after blanking its contents. Given the combination of page blanking and moving to Userpage:DillonRaphael, I took that to be an attempt by the user to userfy the article. Consequently, I moved it for him to User:Dillonraphael/INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing in his own user namespace. Because the page had been blanked, I did not realize that a deletion discussion had begun on it. Therefore, if I should not have finished the userfication for him, please feel free to move it back to INKAS Armored Vehicle Manufacturing until the deletion discussion has concluded. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  05:41, 2 December 2010 (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.