Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanwood (automobile)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stanwood (automobile)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No secondary source coverage established. Insufficient third-party sources, meaning it fails WP:N. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Do your research first. Both the automobile history books I checked had entries on this company.  See  Kimes(ISBN:978-0-87341-428-9) and Wise (ISBN 0-7858-1106-0).   HornColumbia   talk  01:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see what the problem with this article is other than the fact it's a stub, which is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Verified in multiple sources (Google Books turns up a few more, including ).  It's part of the Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of auto history; deletion would not improve the encyclopedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:26, 15 March 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.