Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandusky (automobile company)


 * 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) Doh5678 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky (automobile company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Perhaps this is notable. Perhaps. If it is, there needs to be some real sourcing provided, and I am unable to find any. Brochures, sales flyers, and ads just don't cut the mustard. Courcelles 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's pretty much not even a strong assertion of importance here, let alone any evidence of notability. If it exists, it needs to be actually put forth and added to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Keep per most recent round of edits made by Cullen. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google books search under the company name and also "Sandusky runabout" shows significant coverage of this short-lived auto manufacturer active over 100 years ago. The content is encyclopedic, and I consider a company that actually manufactured cars, even if only for two years, to be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; I echo Courcelles' concern. If Cullen328 has found these sources, xe might to well to actually provide them. Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC) keep due to the sources provided by Cullen, as opposed to Warden's holier-than-thou "use the search links at the top! What do you mean this isn't clearly discernible from "sources are so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem?" Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is clearly notable. Sources seem so easy to find that I am not understanding the nominator's problem. Warden (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Warden - if you have sources, show them. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the search engine links provided conveniently at the head of the discussion. Editors should use these to inform themselves about the topic under discussion.  Some tweaking of the search string may be required when the article title is qualified with a disambiguation clause, as in this case.  If you have not taken such action, please say so, so that your opinion may be discounted accordingly. Warden (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply I believe that AfD nominators should make a good faith effort to look for reliable sources before nominating an article. Earlier today, I said how I found such sources but didn't have time then to write them up. Now I do and here are sufficient sources, I believe, to establish notability: The Antique automobile, Volume 49, published by the Antique Automobile Club of America, wrote in 1985 that the Sandusky Automobile Company was founded by James J. Hinde who "had been a successful paper manufacturer who entered the automobile business with the belief that a small, reasonably priced car could capture a mass market." It seems that this concept influenced Henry Ford. Northwest Ohio Quarterly, publication of the Lucas County/Maumee Valley Historical Society, ran a 12 page profile of the company in 1980. This article stated that "the Sandusky Automobile Company may be far more significant because of the passing interest of Henry Ford than for the number of cars they built and sold. At the time Ford was not yet a manufacturing magnate. He was a successful engineer turned inventor, who had given up his profession to enter the automotive field." Corporate America: a historical bibliography summarized this article by saying that it "traces the history of the Sandusky Automobile Company, focusing on the conceptual contributions made by Sandusky president James J. Hinde to the production strategy of Henry Ford." A Sandusky car was described in detail in Chilton's Automobile trade journal in 1903. Another detailed description was published in The Horseless age: the automobile trade magazine in 1903. The Sandusky Courier F was described in Automobiles of the world, published by Simon and Schuster in 1977. Chilton's Automotive Industries, Volume 10 wrote that the company "Has three light cars and a chassis, posessing points of novelty and merit" in 1903. The Standard Catalog of American Cars 1805-1942, published in 1996, described the Sandusky Courier. The Motor way described the Sandusky Runabout in 1903.Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may believe whatever you want about WP:BEFORE, and when you succeed in having it stuck in as a mandatory prerequisite to nominations, you might actually be right. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen. Echo the same good faith sentiment. One of the Afd's today is because the nom could "only find 2 sources" for a current notable American TV series. Eauhomme (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And this AfD was nowhere near so ludicrous, so please don't insist it is. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been found, definitely a notable chapter and company in the history of the automobile. First Light (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that some sources are available (great work, Cullen!), but I'm going to go ahead and point out that unless someone can and does actually use them in the article to show notability, the problem that caused the article to be AfD'd isn't actually, you know, fixed. The mere presentation of them on the AfD doesn't remedy the fact that the article in its current state shows no notability (even if the notability is "having been a car company way early in the history of car production", the article doesn't even say that). I'd be happy to switch my vote to keep if someone can actually integrate the sources into the article in such a way that the article then asserts notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG doesn't require that an article is well-referenced in order to be kept at AfD, only that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This topic/article clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and therefore should clearly (and will almost surely) be kept. The fact that those references aren't being used in the article isn't an issue for AfD, but rather for a template such as . First Light (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple more references: and . First Light (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment ill advised nom, since there are a hundred just like this; the "show me the refs" taunt, does tend to get egg on face. maybe we have enough people here for a project to improve early auto articles? as opposed to arguing. Slowking4 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't speak for Courcelles, but I hope you're not referring to me when you claim people were "taunting". I'm simply asking that people who actually (seem to) know something about this car (as opposed to me, who can't really make heads or tails of how to process Cullen, etc's links into actual useful article prose, since I don't know cars, new or historical) add their sources to the article so that the notability is clear. If the article's notability is established by sourcing the article, I will consider that a win for Wikipedia, not a source of "egg on one's face". If keep !voters here continue to list sources but refuse to use them in the article, I will be disappointed at what would appear to be cutting off the nose of the 'pedia to spite AfD voters. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat something I said above, the references don't have to be added to the article to show notability. It only has to be shown that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". That has been amply demonstrated. Some of those sources actually have been added if you look, to the article, by the Keep voters—though anyone can add references, even those who continue to vote to Delete an article that "has received significant coverage....". And let us assume good faith about those who have supplied sources here without adding them all to the article. They are helping to save a notable subject from deletion, thus improving Wikipedia, and adding to the sum of all human knowledge. They should be applauded for their efforts. First Light (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article a bit and added some sources. I readily admit that the article still needs more work, but all editors should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress.  We don't have to make this article perfect right now, and there is no perfect article, but we ought to preserve encyclopedic content and references.  Perhaps a young Sandusky historian will come along, search out the full sources in a local library or historical society, and expand this article into one we can all be proud of.  If we delete this article now, that chance will be significantly reduced.  Let's keep it and work on it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perfect, Cullen! That's exactly what I was hoping someone could pull off for this article; the importance of the company is now clear in the article text. Switched my vote above to keep. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I can see no reason to delete. It has been verified and is notable as one of the pioneering manufacturers of the automobile. Greenmaven (talk) 06:23, 16 June 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.