Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (1904 automobile)


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aurora (1904 automobile)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I believe this is one of the earliest three wheeled cars that was produced. However, it was added as a speedy deletion. Sending this to AFD for discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete- I have been unable to find much in the way of sources. This is all I could find; it seems to be the entire basis for the article but it's not even clear if Aurora was the name of the car or the company that manufactured it, or both. In any case, it seems to be a rather obscure automobile manufacturer with no real importance in automotive history. I am more than happy to reevaluate my vote if more sources come to light. Reyk  YO!  10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this truly is one of the earliest three wheeled cars to be produced/mass produced there might be something here, but from what I can tell so far things are too muddy to sustain an article.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 11:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If it existed it is notable, at that date, & it seems clear from Google books etc that it did. Article has been here since 2004. What on earth does "muddy" mean? Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I can't even confirm that it actually existed, so I think we should at least find a way to check one single fact in this article before we decide to keep it. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It gets a hit on this book which I can't open.  What offline sources have you consulted? How much online coverage can one expect for this? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Muddy means it is difficult to find sources and the one inaccessible book may or may not be about this subject. That's muddy, is it not?   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:V and WP:N, perpetual stub. In this particular AfD, my main concern is verifiability, not notability. I don't expect the online coverage to be extensive, but considering that Google Books already contains hundreds of books on historical automobiles, I do expect to see at least one minor reference that can confirm any of the facts contained in the article. So, the article is unsourced. I checked multiple car encyclopedias on Google Books. None of them mentions the car described by the article, not even such seemingly comprehensive publications like The Complete Catalogue of British Cars or The New Encyclopedia of Motorcars, 1885 to the present. Amazon's Complete Catalog of British Cars, 1895-1975 (Reference) (you may need a registered account for book searching rights) also returns no search results for "Aurora". The inaccessible book shouldn't be considered a de facto source as we have no way of telling whether it refers to any of the products made by unrelated Aurora Motor Manufacturing and Aurora Automobile Machinery companies. — Rankiri (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Since Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot built a three wheeled self propelled car in 1771, I can't get too excited about one supposedly built in 1904, especially when verification of it is so hard to find, and notability is generally not shown. Edison (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I CSD'd this mostly due to WP:N, but also due to lack of sources (tagged WP:CS since Dec 08) -TinGrin 20:24, 2 February 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.