Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACA Allertor 125

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. JGHowes ^talk 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACA Allertor 125[edit]

[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)

An article on this siren under a different name was deleted at AfD due to a lack of notability. As this is a duplicate of that topic, albeit with different content (but lacking any sources), it should also be deleted. --Pontificalibus 13:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-10 Mobil Directo ✗ delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First impression is presumptive notability—air raid sirens are certainly a notable topic, and lots of people are aware of them—even though they may not know anything about the ones in their towns. The article might be suitable for merging with other, similar articles, since there seem to be several, although some thought might be given to whether the list of towns with one (or formerly having one) could be shrunk or put into a table to make such a merged page more manageable. I imagine some editors would be tempted to invoke WP:INDISCRIMINATE here, but I don't think that applies as well to air raid sirens as it might to say, different sizes of inlet valves used for washing machines. The fact that the article has something useful to say about the design that one can't get from say, an old catalogue or inventory that just lists models, is in its favour. The lack of sourcing is a serious issue, and it looks like it may take a fair amount of work to find good sources. But this article doesn't appear to be a hoax, so published sources presumably exist, even if finding them over the internet is difficult (and not everything reliable is on the internet). I point out that WP:NEXIST says that "[n]otability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article... Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." And there is no deadline to improve the article. So while this article clearly needs a lot of work, I don't think it should be deleted due to lack of notability (although it might, as I said, be suitable for merging with other, similar articles), or its authors' failure to provide sources. P Aculeius (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of the above contains a policy basis for keeping. If its been deleted before and the sourcing had not improved then there is only one outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable warning siren. Article is mostly just a huge (absolutely enormous) list of cities which have the siren installed. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2020 (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.