Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q Force

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 redirect to Action Force. A selective merge may be undertaken. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q Force

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

Ten-year-old article that has never had coverage in reliable sources. Redirect to Action Force, with sourced content moved to a section there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are you proposing deletion or a merge? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing an end result of Redirect to Action Force. Interested editors may want to copy sourced text from the article to its target. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have done WP:BEFORE and came up with many action figures for sale and some minimal coverage on fan sites. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the codenames and vehicle names only to Action Force, then scrap the rest. No need for a redirect. Any user familiar enough with the topic to look for "Q Force" will be able to find "Action Force" without help. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources aplently. Merging the subarticles will make the Action Force article absurdly large. It seems quite reasonable to split it into subarticles in this way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to a few of these sources that you have found. The article currently contains three dead links as its entire list of references. I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Link rot repair is a routine task around here. I did them by hand but the ArchiveBot could have done it. Suggested sources: [1][2][3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First source: "no results found in this book for q force". Second source: "no results found in this book for q force". No text search available for the third source. Again, if there are sources aplenty, please link to a verifiable one. I'm happy to have the article kept if it meets WP:GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the nominator. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:28, 28 September 2017 (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.