Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predator SOV

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. ✗plicit 00:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predator SOV

[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)

No evidence of notability. A quick Google search only shows two sources: Cavalier Group, which makes the vehicles, and Pakistan's defense ministry, which uses the armored vehicles. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist since it's clearly contested, but would note to @Hawkeye7: that that is an essay, not a guideline
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is also this trivial mention, but I could not find significant coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; a BEFORE search revealed no further sources. Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) is an essay and is therefore useful for its persuasive value but not as an authority, and I am not convinced by it or anything else that this topic is notable or that having a two-sentence one-source article on this topic (without much hope for any future expansion) is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Available sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Zackdasnicker (talk) 13:45, 13 May 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.