Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Trident 3


 * 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. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Trident 3

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources found - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-sourced technical article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Any significant coverage? SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of significant coverage and so it passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any evidence of significant coverage, neither in a BEFORE search or in the article. SK2242 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge this and Dennis Trident 2 into Dennis Trident Having an extra axle & door doesn't always justify a separate article. If this becomes consensus, a hatnote will be need for Dennis Trident E500. Jumpytoo Talk 22:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep With totally different chassis design at the rear (longitudinal engine vs transverse engine) and over 1,300 known examples built, I think it could remain as a separate article. Another problem is, even the name "Trident 3" had been used by Dennis/TransBus, I can hardly ever find any publications (including non-English ones) mentioning this name, December 1997 issue of "Buses" magazine (which only briefly mentioned this name) and one publication from Voith Turbo are the only ones I can find so far. Most of the publications just used the name "Trident", and a small number used the name "Trident III" (it's not known whether Dennis/TransBus did use this name or not). I think the refimprove tag in that page is already adequate. SC96 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was notified by the discussion page notification. While I am still the largest contributor of the article after a good fifteen years, it should be noted that my text was written at a time when referencing standards were not as strictly upheld as now.  If the proposer finds the text not aligning the standards, feel free to delete it.  I do admit most of what I had written should be classified as original research.  In fact, it's very hard to do otherwise -- if reference is needed, it probably requires access to documents from manufacturers or operators, which, IMHO, are most probably classified and likely destroyed (as it holds no commercial value now).  Frankly, with less reference-demanding sites like The Encyclopedia of Bus Transport in Hong Kong thriving, I suppose there is no need to keep hard-to-cover text on Wikipedia. -- Patrickov (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, could do with a major re-write, but notable enough for retention. Lilporchy (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the 3 independent reliable significant coverage sources that enable this to meet GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: What this article needs is a bus gunzel, notably called bunzel. I do know a few, but they are all in Australia. I don't think this Trident 3 model made it to Australia. Nonetheless, the refimprove tag is dated July 2009, a long time ago. I incline to the article author's comments about research and what was available when the article was created, and I assume good faith. The article is quite reasonable and contains sufficient material to make it an interesting read. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2021 (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.