Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jankel

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jankel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced, appears to be an adverstisement —Loginnigol (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Simply can't find sufficient coverage. sst✈^(discuss) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – they are a significant manufacturer of armoured vehicles - e.g. the Metropolitan Police in London has a fleet (see this), they have a joint venture with Chrysler for the Jeep J8 (see this), and the Belgian military have just announced they are buying a fleet of 108 (this, sorry in French) - Aegoceras (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) 20:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that in this case, unless improved, WP:TNT could apply, until such time as a truly encyclopedic article could be written. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely agree that at present the article is poor and while I can't cite them, I'm sure it fails to meet Wikipedia standards. It certainly appears to have been hurridly pulled together by somebody connected to the company. That said, Jankel are a sizeable concern, and certainly prominent in defence/security as outlined by Aegoceras. I've been spending some time recently tidying up the SC Group article (a similar sized private British company), and am happy to consider doing the same to the Jankel article. I'll have a look around this weekend and see what Google turns up and if I think I can do a decent job, I'll dedicate some time to sorting it out and bringing it up to standard. As I'm quite new to Wiki and this sort of thing is very new to me..., if it's deleted before I make a decision (hopefully next week some time), can it be restored, or must I start again?UndateableOne (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @UndateableOne: If you want, you can copy the copy the current article into your sandbox, that way if it gets deleted and if you do find the needed in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources you may use it as a template and improve it there until it meets our policies.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches clearly found nothing better which this article would seriously need. Notifying tagger Crystallizedcarbon and also automobiles user Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few sources [1] but it's impossible to cite the sections, Quite honestly it'd be better off deleted and rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 08:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources, but I do not see the required in depth coverage, and in its current state the article is not valid. If no new sources are found I would recommend deleting it, but first, I would like to give a chance to the editors that recommend keeping it to find some additional in depth coverage to justify its inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to sound like a dick but editors have had a week and 4 days to find sources .... –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And? Oftentimes delete voters never even bother to look for sources. Thus this becomes one of the biggest issues with AfD's since there is way less work involved in voting delete over attempting to fix and/or save an article. AfD's have become enormous time sinks where very little gets accomplished. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the three above, I found this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. - Aegoceras (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant sources uncovered by Aegoceras. Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed by Aegoceras. As I mentioned above (but lack the skills to link directly to - sorry), I'm happy to work on the article and will start by integrating some citations in the New Year. I have pasted the current text into my Sandbox just in case deletion occurs before I get started.UndateableOne (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I beleive the sources found by Aeegoceras are sufficient to push this into notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, moving from delete, due to sources found by Aegoceras. However, the article still needs TNTing. sst✈^discuss 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.