Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison (car)


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Addison (car)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article doesn't seem notable. Since there is no sources about it in the article in the article and I was unable to find anything, let alone in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, by doing a WP:BEFORE. So, this fails WP:GNG and the more specific notability guidelines for products. Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  02:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There is coverage in the early motoring press such as The Motor Car Journal; The Auto and Motor. And then there's more in later histories of motoring such as The British Motorcycle Directory and the Treasury of Foreign Cars, Old and New. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to the coverage or are you just speculating that it exists? Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Of the thousands of books and magazines about automobiles out there, do you really think someone would pick these 5 as a guess? Also, no one has to provide links to coverage, they just need citations. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your worthless comment about me not assuming good faith isn't assuming good faith. There's a legitimate reason I asked. 100% someone would pick those specific magazines if they knew those car magazines were in print during the time this car was produced. Just naming a couple of magazines that might have mentioned the car without providing specifics doesn't prove anything about notability. Anymore then it would do the same things with any other subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Each AfD contains search links -- see above. The nominator is expected to conduct such searches but some people are better at it than others.  All the sources I cited have something to say about the various models of Addison; that's why I listed them.  Of course, as they were published over 100 years ago in the pre-Internet era, we don't have easy access.  But we don't need all the details right now as, per WP:NOTCLEANUP,  we're not here to work on the article.  Our job is to assess the nomination and I find it wanting. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, really there's way to search for sources? Who would have thought and this whole time I assumed they just magically appeared out of thin air or something. You must have missed where I said did a before and nothing come up. Nothing usable for this car and the sources you say contain information about it comes up in the search links. Thanks for the useless education on how to use the internet though.
 * Anyway, the reason I asked is because you said "such as." Which doesn't sound like a 100% statement of the car being covered in those magazines to me. Maybe we don't technically need the details right now, but "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. If you just think magazines "such as" those covered the car in-depth "because car magazines", but don't specifically know that they did, then I would say that's not a rational policy based argument. Like WP:AFDFORMAT says "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." IMO asserting that something exists, but saying you don't need to provide the proof that it does because "pre-internet era brah" or whatever would qualify as "proof by assertion." Which isn't a good keep argument. Not to mention your telling me that I would have found the sources if I had of done a basic search for them, but then your saying they aren't easy to find because "pre-internet era." Which is completely nonsensical.  --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen worse nominations than this... I suspect part of the struggle people have had with seeing the Google Books sources is they "search the internet", especially using the link above, and don't take it further by searching "auto" rather than "car" or for the name of the company. I suspect that folks like me from the pre-internet era may think more widely in terms of concepts rather than search terms because we had to use a card catalog and indices to find the minimum number of sources for a paper on Shakespeare's clowns or endangered wildlife or we'd end up in summer school. But that's just my opinion. And it isn't a criticism. Maybe it's fodder for my first essay. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Additionally: I find it hilarious to think that someone with the ability search for the list of things that could cover the subject of this particular era and subject OR who had prior knowledge of the publications would throw them out as coverage without checking them. Not so hilarious that I've been accused of bad faith for calling out someone who suggests an editor who gives incomplete citations is being deceitful, but next time it'll be expected. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is not, the case that editors can just claim -- absent of actual proof -- that sources exist. They must actually produce them to meet WP:SIGCOV, and the burden of proof is on editors seeking to retain the article.  For all we know, after all, those "sources" are mere advertisements and press releases, and I'd be more trusting if there weren't recent cases of chicanery from an editor very ready to claim that others don't follow WP:BEFORE.  So before I changed my vote, I would want to see what precise reliable sources any keep proponent claimed provided the significant coverage to the subject the GNG requires, quoting publication dates and page numbers. (Just FYI, I am a cardholder at the municipal library with the largest collection in the Western Hemisphere, and am happy to verify any claimed evidence myself.) Otherwise, one can only conclude that they haven't actually looked at the sources they claim exist.   Ravenswing      04:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename the page as The Addison Motor Company. Meets WP:GNG now; I'm not familiar with organizational guidelines, so I can't weigh in. Regarding the sources mentioned above (and some other sources too): They are in Google books; I'm almost done adding them (hint to searchers: If you want to find a car in the first decade of the 1900s, search for "auto" and "motor", not just car, and other words used in the article, like "tri-car" and "Liverpool"). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Id be fine with a rename if the article is kept. That said, the three sources I checked that you added are essentially just extremely basic business/product listings. Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * False. No product listings or directory listings among them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: The coverage in The Autocar, The Commercial Motor and The British Motorcycle Directory look legitimate to me. I agree with the rename to The Addison Motor Company. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "The Addison Motor Company" - I found a reference to it |it here - seems to be a legit car manufacturer (of some historical note) and on that basis, worth keeping. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "The Addison Motor Company" - enough sources available to meet WP:COMPANY --John B123 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2020 (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.