Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goy Advanced Automobile
- 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 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, vanity, crystal ball - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP; company seems to only be only four months old.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the nominator has it - this is still being run as a part-time project. There being no eadline to meet, wait until there is a product. Guy 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Some P. Erson 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AmitDeshwar 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - non notable corp. Zero google hits. Just spam, IMO Brian 06:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
- Delete per nom. With no Google hits and no website of their own, we don't even know if this company really exists. wikipediatrix 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP Angelbo 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the Article. Goy Advanced Automobile is an already existing Australian automobile manufacturer verifiable by the Australian Company Number 119 763 674. If anybody is interested, pls go to the Australian Securities and Investment Commision at www.asic.gov.au and search under the National Names Index. The company is in the R&D stage and its works are not available for public viewing until early next year. The official website will be completed by mid Oct - early Nov. It is not speculative. It is definite. It is as valid as any other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia, however young it is. However I admit that this article needs improvement and I will do the cleanup soon. Thank you for your understandingDavidgoymt 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say work do you mean a prototype, a design on paper or a clay model? Seano1 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the company is not trading, and information about it is confidential, it's hardly "as valid" as "other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia". It's simply not notable. There is no guarantee that the company will ever trade and the protocols of this site mean that crystal-ball gazing, whether by the most reputable of seers (or the least) is a no-no. When the company has achieved notability, an article will be deserving. Millions (if not billions) of properly registered and active companies all over the world do not justify Wikipedia articles because of lack of notability. How much more so one that has not even launched. Top tip: Get a stack of media coverage from reputable (and notable) sources and even without trading, an article would be justified. --Dweller 10:19, 15 September 2006 (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.