Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Revolution EV
- 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ram Revolution EV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON, only one of the sources is independent (TechCrunch). The rest are all WP:SPS. Was draftified and then undraftified. A search for sources doesn't really show much. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- More independent sources have been added, they were not very hard to find. If a search didn't turn up much, why not just ask or otherwise voice how the writer (as someone new to Wikipedia) can improve their article, rather than mark an article for deletion that someone put a good amount of their free time into solely out of their passion for the topic? Ashquacks (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would've asked for it to be draftified however since it was draftified and recreated in mainspace I have to go through the deletion process. Wish I didn't have to but oh well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for being not familiar as I am a Wikipedia newcomer. By draft I am guessing you are referring to the test writing in sandbox that was created to actually familiarize myself with how the Wikipedia editor works. However, I was unable to find anything in the deletion process primers that mentions draft articles or their recreation. Ashquacks (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- No. I mean draftspace. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for being not familiar as I am a Wikipedia newcomer. By draft I am guessing you are referring to the test writing in sandbox that was created to actually familiarize myself with how the Wikipedia editor works. However, I was unable to find anything in the deletion process primers that mentions draft articles or their recreation. Ashquacks (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would've asked for it to be draftified however since it was draftified and recreated in mainspace I have to go through the deletion process. Wish I didn't have to but oh well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:NEXIST. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV and a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of Ram pickup, a long article itself. Not sure how this could have been nominated. Perhaps the search was limed to "Ram Revolution EV"? Just throwing an option. These things happen and I'm curious to hear more! Try this search instead. Also, please rename to Ram 1500 REV or Ram Revolution.
- I nominated it because the article is clearly not ready for mainspace and since it was already draftified I couldn't drafitfy it again and had to go through AFD. I agree that this is notable, but the article isn't notable as is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps explain why the article is not ready for the main space in your opinion? Specifically, how could the article be not notable given the vast amounts of significant coverage? gidonb (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- HUh. It seems to be better now. this was the version I saw. Only 1 of the sources was independent from the subject. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but you describe a reference bias (versus concentrating on sources). Per WP:NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold comes from the guideline, so we will not miss this! So, given the improvements that you observed, are you withdrawing the nomination? Your other nomination looks better. I'll get to that soon! gidonb (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I'm going to withdraw this nom. And I know about notability, however the article was in no condition to remain in mainspace when I got to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but you describe a reference bias (versus concentrating on sources). Per WP:NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold comes from the guideline, so we will not miss this! So, given the improvements that you observed, are you withdrawing the nomination? Your other nomination looks better. I'll get to that soon! gidonb (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- HUh. It seems to be better now. this was the version I saw. Only 1 of the sources was independent from the subject. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps explain why the article is not ready for the main space in your opinion? Specifically, how could the article be not notable given the vast amounts of significant coverage? gidonb (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (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.