Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker & Dale

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baker & Dale[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although only a stub article this seems to be because not much has been published about the subject. There is no doubt that the car existed and this gives it some historical importance. An article about the car also exists on German Wikipedia.Malcolma (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if it's possible to do but could I suggest merging some of the UK cyclecar articles into a single article, since many of them only have one or a few sources. Lewcm Talk to me! 22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started going through the red links on the Cyclecar article but didn't finish. This is why there are no red linked items under the UK listing starting with A or B. I think merging them into one article would be problematic as it wouold not be easy deciding what to include and what warranted its own article. As it stands, having lots of short or stub articles is not ideal nut does it do any harm? There was a UK motoring journalist who was writing up the history of many cyclecars but sadly he is no longer with us so that source has gone. Malcolma (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i agree that there are a lack of sources, but this seems important for an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. TLA (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic vehicle manufacturers and marques have generally been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, importance is not an inclusion criteria, but notability is. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's WP:CONSENSUS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, that's not OTHERSTUFF. It is WP:INHERITED. I fail to see how consensus can dub that everything in a specific group in automatically notable. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a policy or consensus that says all historical cars are notable, please point me to it. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way is it WP:INHERITED? You're just clutching at straws now. We've had a number of AfDs about historic motor vehicle manufacturers. I don't think I've ever seen one closed as delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be exceptions to a rule. Just because you have seen one doesn't mean it won't ever happen. And, dang it, I confused inherited and inherent again. Sorry about that, that isn't the first time I've confused the terms. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.