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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbombe[edit]

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

This article was created by Diginerd84, a known sockpuppet for the PR firm Bell Pottinger (see Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations) and has been largely unchanged since its creation. If a decision is made that the vehicle meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, I would encourage deleting this article and starting anew. Gobonobo ^T ^C 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought we judged notability by sources? The article itself, and its subject, are very well sourced; and while the links to Jane's have broken (probably they were just for an exhibition) the other links are impeccable, detailed, and right on the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG, no need to look further. The article itself is informative, interesting and well-written encyclopedic content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is well written and well sourced. The topic is clearly notable. The article has been around for over a year now, and multiple editors have edited the page. We don't delete articles simply because the first editor is now blocked for socking. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets coverage. [1] Dream Focus 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created in bad faith and its prose is full of peacock terms and other marketing-speak, but it's on a notable topic. I've had a go at further de-spamming the prose. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've chopped it back further. The claim that the vehicle can carry a heavy load over "all types of terrain without loss of mobility" I removed here is a good example of how spammy this was: it's obviously not physically possible for any vehicle to be unaffected by different terrain as this claimed! Bell Pottinger sure seem to be a very dumb company. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Coverage is not the same as notability, and I hate spammers. Nonetheless, I think it is a weak keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that the text of the article as it stands is now significantly different to when the article was created by the spammer. I agree that most of the online references are basically recycled press releases, but this vehicle will also have been covered in entries in the independent Jane's Armoured Vehicles book and the like. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually not too bad, as articles go. We can clean it, but let's salvage what we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (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.