Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MCV EvoTor


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  EN  - Jungwon  07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

MCV EvoTor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Endorse redirect to Manufacturing Commercial Vehicles. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Keep - Found these:    however I'm not entirely convinced this model's notable given the majority of sources are all from one news company. The model's been out for 3 years now and that's the best I can find..., No objections to redirecting if preferred. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, Route One (which I am assuming is reliable) is the only SIGCOV independent source here SK2242 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per above – covered in notable industry sources. Buttons0603 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except no as Route One is only one source and the others are not independent: the websites of Asset Alliance Group and Volvo Buses do nothing for notability. SK2242 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Solid arguments for keep are given and it makes no sense to delete this otherwise we get an unbalanced encyclopedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Solid? The first argument was a "very week keep" which relied on only one independent source. One independent source is not good enough for GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Total of three independent sources had been found. SC96 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I don’t want to bludgeon but if I may ask what are the other two sources? SK2242 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Already listed in the article. SC96 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing those out - the first ref is ok and the second one is from a trade mag but should be enough to scrape past GNG. SK2242 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 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.