Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optare Olympus

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Olympus

[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)

Some mentions/minor coverage in books but no significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced technical article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there at least 3 pieces of significant coverage from reliable independent sources to pass GNG? SK2242 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of significant coverage and so it passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any evidence of significant coverage, neither in a BEFORE search or in the article. SK2242 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can @Oaktree b: or @Andrew Davidson: provide at least 3 reliable sources that talk about the subject in significant detail to show notability? A paragraph in a book is not significant coverage. This same question goes for the other bus nominations they have commented on. SK2242 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Comment If it's going to be an issue, could be merged under the main Optare article. Individual bus models or (locomotive models) have traditionally been kept here,I see no reason to change this now. It's certainly within scope of Category:Transport_stubs, itself a subcat of Project Transport, Project Engineering, under the Technology Portal. The Category Technology says: Scope: Most articles within Category:Technology and its sub-categories are within our scope. There are several other projects with similar scopes, which we hope to work closely with. It falls 4 subcategories under project technology, but it's within scope and in fact should be tagged as a Stub rather than nominated for deletion. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could do with some more cites, put notable enough to pass WP:GNG, issues of Buses from the era would be a starting point. Lilporchy (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lilporchy. Meets the GNG and more sources will be available - the notability of 15 year old niche subjects cannot be adequately determined by 5 minutes on Google. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 8 January 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.