Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auscision Models

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auscision Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A non-notable model train manufacturer Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Powerline Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for failing WP:CORP. Choo choo! YechielMan 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete. Re:"Choo choo!", YechielMan, perhaps you'd like to supply a list of your hobbies so that we can insult them in a similar way? Grutness...wha? 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a joke. I'll honor your request by pointing to a satirical essay by H. G. Wells, "Concerning Chess". YechielMan 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, fair enough. Humour doesn't always come across that way when it's written only - sorry :) Grutness...wha? 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced, but I almost wanted to type "keep" just to counter the silly stuff behind the delete comment Grutness was referring to... —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 07:08Z
• Very reluctant delete - I've done my best to source this, but I can find only one actual article about the company - every other hit is either on a catalogue entry for a shop stocking them or fan forums discussing their products. Leave this one for the full 5 days though to give any Aus/NZ editors a shot at expanding and sourcing this though - any genuine coverage they've had is going to be in specialist magazines that won't necessarily have found their way online — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 02:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- not notable at all. TarquiniusWikipedius 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- not notable.SlideAndSlip 14:56, 27 April 2007 (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.