Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahkampfkanone 2


 * 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 no consensus. I'm not going to relist this a third time as I honestly doubt there'll be an outcome. Feel free to re-nominate (to reset this discussion) if desired; if renominated, I'd be combining this and #1 into one discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nahkampfkanone 2

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fail WP:GNG. Prototype, never in service The Banner  talk 22:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  The Banner  talk 22:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. "Prototype, never in service" is not how notability works.is enough for a "Keep".Nüedi (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner  talk 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact only one was built doesn't make it unnotable, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to delete. I have concerns about this mass nomination given you included that comment on almost all of them. I'd assume you'd be familiar with how notability and deletion rationailes work. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Barely enough here to keep; also the nominator's rationaile of "never in service" is not a valid deletion argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 07:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just add one ref more (NZZ Newspaper). Spending just a few seconds using google with different names spellings confirms GNG.Nüedi (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (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.