Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allwyn Cyclecars


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Allwyn Cyclecars

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete had a look in Google Books and Google Scholar as well, no dice. A few passing mentions in directories is all the history books have to say unfortunately. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: They existed, but that's all I can find, nothing in Gbooks Scholar, News or Jstor. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep:Not much seems to be known about the car but it existed. It does appear in some of the standard reference books but with very little that can be added to this article. These refs appear on the German Wikipedia page about the car and can no doubt be added to this article. I don't see what harm is being done by keeping the article. I don't understand what RS means in the nomination so can't comment on that.Malcolma (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It means Reliable Sources see the WP:GNG. Existing as short notes in reference books is not normally considered significant coverage. JMWt (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM BrigadierG (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom. (Also, the second sentence is a word-for-word copy from a copyrighted site.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is the other way round. The "copyrighted site" has copied the Wikipedia article.  A Google search finds the same words used on lots of sites.  Malcolma (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly although that reference cites another, so the phrase could come from that.
 * To me the thing is probably moot, but if we are to save we probably need to reword. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote it I assure you I did not copy the text from any website or book.Malcolma (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom. Clearly short of WP:NCORP, and GNG too. It has a line on the redirect target, which is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: There is no complete coverage GQO  (talk) 7:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But is there a reason not to redirect? Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this is a plausible search term. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment/Keep:I started the article when trying to remove some of the red links in the page on Cyclecars which is why the ones for A and B have gone from the United Kingdom section. Deleting this article would I believe reinstate the red link. It could be removed again by linking to the German Language Wikipedia article which has a tranlation of the text. Or it could be referenced out to one of the external sites that have copied the text. If it is to be made a redirect is it to redirected to "List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom#Former manufacturers" or "Cyclecars". I think it would be simpler to keep the article and don't see what harm it causes by keeping it. Malcolma (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirecting would not reinstate a red link, although there would be a question as to whether the red link is needed at all (and a circular link would be removed). Redirecting would also preserve your work in the page history should a notable page become possible. But the reason we shouldn't have the article as it stands is that we don't have an independently notable subject, nor enough information to write a Wikipedia page. The reader would be better served by the redirect, where the same information we have now can be placed within a wider context - giving the reader more information and background than they would get from here. Incidentally you should strike or at least unbold your "Keep" in this comment. You have already entered a bolded !vote. The bold text at AfD has a specific meaning, highlighting your !vote, and you shouldn't repeat your bolded !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2024 (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.