Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier Motors (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Collier Motors
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's been nearly six years since the last nomination, and while the article seems to have improved somewhat, it is still not anywhere near notable enough to keep around. Plus, the article appears to be orphaned anyways, which was NOT the case the last time the article was nominated. And from personal experience, there is precedence to successfully deleting an article the second time around. Delete, then redirect to American Motors Jgera5 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article has been expanded and references added since the decision to keep back in February 2006. It is not an "orphan" and has a steady stream of views. The subject matter is a noteworthy example of automotive history and collector car archaeology. It is an independent enterprise that continues with a unique business model. Moreover, in addition to descriptions in enthusiast and travel webpages, Collier Motors has been written up with photographs in a book titled The Corvette in the Barn: More Great Stories of Automotive Archaeology in the chapter called "The good, the bad, and the lucky: Pikeville purgatory" that was published by a respected imprint in the automotive field. Although Jgera5 has already unilaterally deleted this article on August 30 without any discussion (|see here), a redirect to American Motors (AMC) does not provide a solution. The article about the automaker is already too long and beyond the scope to discuss noteworthy independent cases such as Collier Motors. CZmarlin (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -A very unusual and noteworthy establishment which has had significant coverage in other forms of media and which could not be adequately merged into another article. The notablity of the article relates to the manner of the companies continued support of American Motors product despite that companies demise, which though related is of no significance to the American Motors page. The article has adequate verifiable references and could not be construed as self-promotion Mighty Antar (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This AfD was not transcluded in the logs. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article more than adequately established notability though multiple reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have tagged this artical for rescue, per Notabiltiy, it seems very signifigant, sourced right, written to wikipedias standards, just because the company was bought out should not mean it should be forgotten. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes the WP:GNG → Σ  τ  c . 02:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia does not govern by precedence, nor is not liking something because you don't think its good enough for Wikipedia ever a valid reason to delete something. Enough has been found to satisfy WP:GNG   D r e a m Focus  03:24, 16 October 2011 (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.