Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahkampfkanone 1

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 no consensus. I'm not going to relist this a third time as I honestly doubt there'll be an outcome. Feel free to re-nominate (to reset this discussion) if desired. Daniel (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nahkampfkanone 1[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Only one vehicle built. The Banner talk 22:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:16, 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. "Only one built, fails GNG" is not how notability works. Nüedi (talk) 13:56, 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]
Keep. Barely enough here to keep; also the nominator's rationaile of "never in service" is not a valid deletion argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "It exists" is also an argument to avoid. The Banner talk 09:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know it's funny that, seeing as I didn't make that argument. Try again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just add one ref more (NZZ Newspaper). Spending just a few seconds using google with different names spellings confirms GNG.Nüedi (talk) 18:49, 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.