Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Force

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Time Force (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)

This was created by a blocked UPE. The coverage is either routine or related to brand ambassadors. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Mercenf (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Power Rangers Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom:Are you recommending a "keep" or a "redirect"? They aren't the same thing. Joyous! Noise! 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the title, redirect the page to Power Rangers: Time Force Americanfreedom (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this we usually just say "redirect". "Keep" usually implies keeping the content/history of the article rather than just the title. Redirecting implies keeping the title (how else would it redirect). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references are there.. they have some of the biggest ad campaigns for watches out there.. Most articles need 5-10 sources .. vandalism comment. Has tagged team the entire set of pages in editing war.. Both are from upwork.. He nominated 2 pages and didnt even leave the required notifications on the talk pages. This is vandalism. This user has over 5m views on his pages.. All articles are well referenced before they were attacked. 135.148.233.69 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have sufficient referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per @Indefensible and others. Okoslavia (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think some of the points brought up by the others are... interesting, to say the least. I think I shall have to take the time to review this one as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to note that Okoslavia is making pile-on votes. I believe their rationale mean nothing when they say "Keep per Indefensible and others", because Indefensible hasn't demonstrated that the references are sufficient, and others (above) have been blocked for being sockpuppets of ScienceAdvisor (the creator of this article). Mercenf (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know the brand, has known track record in different countries, and I dare say I now consider it is better. I do not agree that they want to eliminate it. Besides, everything is rightly referenced. Kathe Moreno M (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Kathe Moreno M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know for a fact this is an actual brand I have bought items from them in the past, actually they have social media, and website. Everything is well referenced Javiro04 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Javiro04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete reference [1] and [2] are just sites selling the watches. Ref [3] is about the opening of one branch. Ref [4] is about a photograph competition that mentions the brand in passing. Three of the references are about some famous people who are brand ambassadors which isn't anything out of the ordinary (for famous people I mean). Two of the references are a potted history of the brand. I've had a (very) brief look for any more references and can't find anything other than sales sites. Someone else might be able to come up with more refs.Knitsey (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ScienceAdvisor seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability guidelines, and doesn't see likely to be convinced otherwise, for all that's now mostly a moot point. Having big ad campaigns is, in fact, not a reason to retain an article on Wikipedia. From my review (though TWL is still not working for me on my laptop for some reason) I would agree with the assessment made in a previous AfD on another subject, that it is very unlikely that better sources could be found on this topic. Sock disruption aside, a topic for which there is no and can be no encyclopedic article written to standards is deleted, with prejudice. The redirect may be restored after deletion, but I do not believe the article should be kept in page history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Knitsey above that the sources fails to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references used fails to contain sufficient in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]