Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOWAG-AEG

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOWAG-AEG

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Insufficient independent sources available to establish WP:GNG. The Banner talk 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's barely enough sourcing, but there is enough.Nüedi (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence of a vehicle is not the same as being notable. The Banner talk 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The mere existence of a vehicle..." No. built:37, In service:1967 - 2003 (36years!) = being notable.Nüedi (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's barely enough here but the nominator is reminded that sources need only exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is barely enough there but its an interesting ! article, and a piece of aviation history, particularly with reference to Dassault Mirage aircraft. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted twice despite a clear consensus? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are more conservative on when to relist versus when to close than others. To help them out, I'll throw in a keep per consensus. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (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.