- 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 keep. Albeit some of the arguments were a tad unsubstantial. Geschichte ( talk) 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mowag Tornado infantry fighting vehicle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Never in service, only prototypes. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "Never in service, only prototypes" is not a valid reason for deletion. Are there additional sources available? they only need to exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. "Never in service, only prototypes" is not how notability works.
Nüedi (
talk)
14:01, 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)
- Keep I'm leaning to keep. This vehicle was designed by Mowag, and a prototype was built, and there are sources to indicate this and photos of the vehicle. As mentioned, simply because "it didn't enter service" doesn't qualify as a reason to delete the article. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As much as I detest scant notability, I also agree, this one is notable per se, and 'never in service' is not a reason for deletion. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:39, 8 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.
- 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 keep. Albeit some of the arguments were a tad unsubstantial. Geschichte ( talk) 08:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mowag Tornado infantry fighting vehicle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Never in service, only prototypes. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "Never in service, only prototypes" is not a valid reason for deletion. Are there additional sources available? they only need to exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. "Never in service, only prototypes" is not how notability works.
Nüedi (
talk)
14:01, 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)
- Keep I'm leaning to keep. This vehicle was designed by Mowag, and a prototype was built, and there are sources to indicate this and photos of the vehicle. As mentioned, simply because "it didn't enter service" doesn't qualify as a reason to delete the article. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As much as I detest scant notability, I also agree, this one is notable per se, and 'never in service' is not a reason for deletion. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:39, 8 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.