Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyco Rebound

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 NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyco Rebound

I don't think this individual model of remote control car warrants an article of it's own - WP:NN RC Car DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, me neither. If there were more info for collectors, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Terrible article that needs a cleanup, but is notable IMO. 10k Google hits, I remember it existing and think it could be turned into a decent article by someone who knew about it Halo 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, normally I would recommend that an article like this should be deleted, but if there is to be any articles on remote control cars, this would be one to include given its apparent popularity. You can check out the Google results (checking for unique results will not work with so many results, Google will cut them off after a few hundred) and find pictures of it on Google Images. They, and their parts, are also being bought and sold by individuals after the apparent discontinuation of most versions. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability stated, implied, or attempted. A list for the sake of listing. Tychocat 08:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It isn't because of notability that it should be deleted. I'm sure that Kjkolb is correct and that this is an important model. However, the article as it stands now is a catalog listing. There was this model, then this one, then the other one, then another. I.e. there should be no G4 prejudice against the creation of a properly discursive article implied by my delete vote. Geogre 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it should be cleaned up not erased Yuckfoo 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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.