Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontiac Rageous


 * 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.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pontiac Rageous

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable car. Most standalone models are notable on their own, but this never got past a concept and a dinky model. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No external sources or references. I would urge that this be speedied under A7, but apparently that criterion does not apply to articles about cars, or products in general. Noir (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pontiac. Might be too short for an article, but Google suggests enough references for a possible article, so it does exist (hence the redirect). - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing to keep based on the references provided below. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's very limited information on this car, since the concept project has been killed. --Mblumber (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. two lines and an infobox does not an article make. No WP:N proved. ThuranX (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - and then possibly create a redirect to Pontiac Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is obviously not a hoax, and the car was a concept car. Closing administrator, please keep this in mind: 22 google news references: Chicago Sun-Times "Pontiac's Rageous design is surprising", Washington Times "Pontiac Rageous is practical too.(Auto Weekend)" Buffalo News, New York Times x2, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post. 8,340 hits on Google www.edmunds.com, www.motortrend.com Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."  No one bothered to spend two minutes looking for sources. Strong Keep travb (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources uncovered by travb easily establish notability per WP:N. Not an exceptional case. Wily D  14:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources provided by travb clearly show that this is notable.  C h a m a l  talk 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but only if expanded in the immediate future. Someone want to start with getting info from some of those Google News links, and referencing them?  Otherwise, if noone feels like writing about it, it's not worth keeping.  --Vossanova o&lt; 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "No-one wants to expand an article that Vossanova wants to be expanded." is not a reason for deletion listed in our Deletion policy. Nor, indeed, do you get to unilaterally impose a deadline.  There is no deadline.  You want writing to be done?  sofixit!  Be bold and write. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per travb.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added in some of the sources noted by travb to better demonstrate that this meets WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2009 (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.