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 00:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TAS5500[edit]

TAS5500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd in 2020 with the rationale "take to AfD". No improvement made at the time or since. Frankly I have been unable to confirm that this even exists, as I have not found even trivial mentions of it on a search (and neither did the original PROD proposer). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Bundling the following as they are all similarly unverified and were created by the same editor:[reply]

Type 82 truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TAS5570 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TAS5690 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, if any does exist it would belong in a list article at most. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps also worthwhile to look at TAS5570 and TAS5690 and Type_82_truck from Category:Military vehicles of the People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs)

• Oh yeah, I'll bundle those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, all not notable. Cavalryman (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete all All four articles fail WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NOTDATABASE, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a vehicle exists, whether it be land, sea, air, civilian or military, does not mean it merits an article on Wikipedia. The best I could find on these vehicles where some database entries that absolutely do not go towards it passing the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alvaldi. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question -- Is there scope for merging all these into one article? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all A search only pulls up Wikipedia mirrors and an unrelated measuring instrument which arguably comes closer to meeting notability than this vehicle. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2022 (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.