Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright Cityranger


 * 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 MERGE to Wright Endurance.  Spinning Spark  19:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wright Cityranger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey 2010   Talk  01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - believe it or not people are interested in buses; see bus spotting, so I have no doubt as to the fact that this can be properly sourced and referenced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of bus spotting, but these articles haven't really been expanded and they probably wont be ... Davey 2010   Talk  18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you are clearly not taking them into consideration. Articles are kept on notability, not how long they are.  Trust me, there will be someone who will do the research and publish and someone else will edit it.  If you delete this you'll make it harder for any potential contributors to contribute (see Who writes Wikipedia).  It also looks like the editor created the article in good faith, and it's a bit rude to nominate it, tbh.  It's doing no harm.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. If you're not interested go away and do something useful. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .... Well so far no one's contributed which is why it's here .... Did I say "I didn't like it" .....No, nominating this is VERY useful, Personally you ought to do something useful instead sat here being a child over this! .... You put keep that's it...  Davey 2010   Talk  19:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil please Davey... Quackdave (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. If you're not interested go away and do something useful. hardly WP:civil is it?, Not saying my reply was any better but I nominated this in WP:Good Faith, not to piss everyone off,, Davey 2010   Talk  15:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hesitant Delete. Suprisingly, I have not found any reliable secondary sources on the subject of this article online, though I suppose there will probably be an obscure mention of this somewhere. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - it clearly needs some work doing on it, but that's not a reason for deletion - it's a reason to improve it. It should only be deleted if it is not realistically possible to cite reliable secondary sources, which I'm convinced it will be, because automotive designs of all kinds have plenty of publications dedicated to providing commentary on them, and are therefore routinely considered notable.


 * For starters, almost all newly-available bus models would get an article in Ian Allan Buses magazine around the time of their launch, and probably in other magazines too, and all but the most obscure will be listed in the same publisher's Bus and Coach Recognition book series by Alan Millar. (Sadly I don't have either available at the moment, so can't provide said citations myself right now, but hopefully others can.)


 * At a push it could perhaps be merged into Wright Endurance, which it is derived from (albeit less obviously so than the UrbanRanger), but there seems no clear reason to deviate from the established one-article-per-named-model convention we currently have.


 * Indeed, a more extreme solution of merging the entire Wrightbus "Classic" range into one article could be a possibility, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work when the rationale for doing so isn't clear-cut.


 * Quackdave (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Wright Endurance - Totally verifiable, but unclear in terms of individual notability. Harmless but marginal IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wright Endurance as a separate section. The fact that only 22 were built probably makes it NN, but worth a brief note in a related article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (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.