Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford VN platform

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 merge to Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar. Note that after the merge is completed, the original title must be retained (as a redirect) to preserve its edit history and attribution; see {{R from merge}}. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ford VN platform

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

This page is purely

WP: OR and shows no proof of its existence. I can tell you, that it doesn't exist on a corporate level. Someone here definitely made it up and never provided any citations to back it up. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two content sections to Ford E-Series and Ford Aerostar respectively, then delete this title. The two vehicles/platforms are unrelated and there's no reason to have them combined in the same article and therefore no reason to keep this article title since there does not appear to be a "VN platform" as such. --Sable232 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now at least) After digging through the history, it looks like the VN58/VN127 text has been a part of things here since this was created back in 2004; VN1 was also added a lifetime ago. (My primary contribution here was expanding the text beyond two sentences). Will this article move past the point of being a stub? No, and it doesn't need to be expanded beyond its current state (barring any changes in production down the line). Should it need some improvement in its source content? I do agree with that; at this point, finding sources to back this content (that aren't Wikipedia copypasted...) will be challenging. This is the direction I would move towards first. -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete title per Sable232.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2021 (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.