Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Cougar


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ACE Cougar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is about a non-notable bus type - only two were ever built. Prod was removed without addressing the issue of notability. Bigvernie (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Prod was apparently removed for a valid reason: see the edit summary. Creator seems not to be able to defend the article until August 10. This AfD nomination needs to be withdrawn if only out of common courtesy--revisiting it after Aug 10 would be fine with me. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Only two were ever built" is not a good reason to delete an article. A bus topic could be notable if only one were built, and in some cases, zero.  There seems to be enough secondary coverage to pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As above, author is away until August 10 and so is unable to defend article. It is common courtesy to wait until after then. Nominator has comparatively few edits, all of which are trying to delete things. The PROD was already removed, so editor has now AfD'd it instead (despite the reason given for removing PROD). Also, article is good, and already has numerous good sources. "Article is about a non-notable bus type - only two were ever built" is a rubbish reason for deletion, the fact only two were ever built makes it more notable, not less. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As above. A good well written article. I can't see the notability problem as there are plenty of references. At the very least wait until the author is able to contribute before discussing this sort of thing. Editor5807speak 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - I didn't know that "the author" owned this article or that other editors needed to wait for him/her before raising what I believe are valid concerns about this article. Although I do not share the perspective of those above, I can see that the wagons have effectively circled this article. Bigvernie (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (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.