Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Force


 * 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__. An interested editor can create a redirect from this page title to a target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Time Force

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

This was created by a blocked UPE. The coverage is either routine or related to brand ambassadors. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect to Power Rangers Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you recommending a "keep" or a "redirect"? They aren't the same thing. Joyous! Noise! 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the title, redirect the page to Power Rangers: Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For this we usually just say "redirect". "Keep" usually implies keeping the content/history of the article rather than just the title. Redirecting implies keeping the title (how else would it redirect). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of references are there.. they have some of the biggest ad campaigns for watches out there.. Most articles need 5-10 sources .. vandalism comment. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. This user has over 5m views on his pages.. All articles are well referenced before they were attacked. 135.148.233.69 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - seems to have sufficient referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say "sufficient referencing" you should to be able to point to at least two specific references which meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Please provide me with links to any two references (and the paragraphs within those references) which meet WP:SIRS - that is, have in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND) about the company. It would be nice if you started including this information with your future AfD !voting.  HighKing++ 16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per @Indefensible and others. Okoslavia (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think some of the points brought up by the others are... interesting, to say the least. I think I shall have to take the time to review this one as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that Okoslavia is making pile-on votes. I believe their rationale mean nothing when they say "Keep per Indefensible and others", because Indefensible hasn't demonstrated that the references are sufficient, and others have been blocked for being sockpuppets of ScienceAdvisor (the creator of this article). Mercenf (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that they want to eliminate it. Besides, everything is rightly referenced. Kathe Moreno M (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * — Kathe Moreno M (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star   Mississippi  14:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Everything is well referenced Javiro04 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * — Javiro04 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star   Mississippi  14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete reference and  are just sites selling the watches. Ref  is about the opening of one branch. Ref  is about a photograph competition that mentions the brand in passing. Three of the references are about some famous people who are brand ambassadors which isn't anything out of the ordinary (for famous people I mean). Two of the references are a potted history of the brand.  I've had a (very) brief look for any more references and can't find anything other than sales sites. Someone else might be able to come up with more refs.Knitsey (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. ScienceAdvisor seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability guidelines, and doesn't see likely to be convinced otherwise, for all that's now mostly a moot point. Having big ad campaigns is, in fact, not a reason to retain an article on Wikipedia. From my review (though TWL is still not working for me on my laptop for some reason) I would agree with the assessment made in a previous AfD on another subject, that it is very unlikely that better sources could be found on this topic. Sock disruption aside, a topic for which there is no and can be no encyclopedic article written to standards is deleted, with prejudice. The redirect may be restored after deletion, but I do not believe the article should be kept in page history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Knitsey above that the sources fails to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references used fails to contain sufficient in-depth "Independent Content".  HighKing++ 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Power Rangers Time Force: Fails GNG and NCORP. Plausible enough redirect, delete to prevent confusion from an article being redirected to a totally unrelated topic. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to the Time Force seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete for lack of a merge target. I won't clog up the discussion with my search findings since I don't believe they are germane to the outcome. But I will say that my searching leaves me at the same time convinced that this is a brand of some encyclopedic significance, for which sources meeting NCORP might well exist, and that no such sources are apparent at present. (I would note that searching Colombian and Spanish sources yields better results, including some that might meet the GNG, but I'm not seeing any that go the full CORPDEPTH.) And given the history of the article, I can see no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. I do not think there should be any particular prejudice against good faith re-creation, but the redirect proposed above seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2023 (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.