Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danvignes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. James086Talk | Email 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danvignes

Danvignes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notable? Few articles link to it Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. While orphaned articles aren't necessarily non-notable, this car seems to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I looked for more references to add but can find nothing about the vehicle. Would like to see it expanded but without refs its has to fail WP:V as mentioned above. Hammer1980·talk 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a reference cited in the article, though none of us apparently has access to the book in question. It's harder to find good online sources for a subject that is less recent. I did see a few mentions in foreign language cites - for example (horrible translation job) - which corroborate the info in the article. I don't think WP:V is so much the issue as WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely passes WP:V. It is easily verifiable by going to a library and looking up the reference cited in the article, or by doing a simple Google book search which finds two further references. I think those refs are enough for notability, but if not then the fact that a 70-year old car gets non-wiki Google hits in eight different languages (I spotted French, Polish, German, Dutch, Japanese, Russian, Bulgarian and English) shows that it's pretty widely notable. And btw I did check that those hits are for the car, not Colonel Danvignes. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—I have added to references one of the Google Books citations mentioned by Phil Bridger, above. This satisfies at least the minimum most verifiability standard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Car models have generally been considered notable as there are typically sufficient sources available. It's more challenging with older models, but we need to be careful to avoid bias against pre-computer age topics. We now have enough sourcing to comfortably meet WP:V, and I have little doubt there are enough sources to meet WP:N given time. As it is, the stub adds value to Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2007 (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.