Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commuter Cars

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 Commuter Cars Tango. Agreement that the content should be retained in some form with a 'merge' best meeting consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter Cars[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)

Only reference is to the company's own website Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Commuter Cars Tango. If you combine coverage of the car with coverage of the company, it nets just enough notability to justify one article. Most of our sources are interested in what makes the car unique, rather than the company, so we probably prefer to keep the car article and merge a summary of the details about the company into a section of that article, rather than the other way around. Yet another WP:TOOSOON electric vehicle permastub. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNN Money, Bloomberg, The subject was notable in 2005 and once a subject is notable it remains notable. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The CNN Money article is based entirely on an interview and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The Bloomberg reference is a basic generic listing provided by the company with no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and/or fact checking and is not significant coverage, fails both SIGCOV and ORGIND. "Coverage" does not equate to references that may be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland. The coverage is slim on both the car and the company, but if merged, it may just barely squeak by the WP:GNG. Case in point, of the three sources provided by Lightburst above, the Bloomberg link is just a catalog entry for the company with no actual coverage, and the other two are brief and more about the actual product than the company itself. I don't have any strong opinions on whether this article should be merged into the Commuter Cars Tango article, as suggested by Dennis Bratland, or that article should be merged here, but I do believe that one of those should be done, as we do not need both as separate articles. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. One article or two, and decide whether the merged article should be here or there. When the article was nominated there were no references, but Lightburst found and added some and improved the article. Such a common name, you have to add in the word "tango" to get valid results in Google news search. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with to Commuter Cars Tango. I have improved the reference formatting on the latter article, but it would be improved by moving some of the "References" to in line citations. I also improved the formatting of the reference in this article Commuter Cars. In any event, between the two articles, there is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland, but in the other direction (keep the company article, merge its products in; more or less a set index article). Both seem notable enough but not independently. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It looks like enough to support an article after merge. Springee (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland. Normally I'd go with the company name for the article, but Commuter Car is more or less a generic phrase for any car used for commuting. This company only made the one car which has been covered in several specialist magazines unreferenced on either page currently and Commuter Cars Tango is much more likely to be a recognisable and searched for title. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty AntarI kind of agree with Ivanvector's logic. Perhaps rename this article Commuter Cars Company and merge to it. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter cars is a WP formatted generic name. Commuter Cars isn't.

Keep as an established company, albeit small, and notable worldwide for their WTF pricing model. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolol Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think the article would get more attention and coverage if it is merged in Commuter Cars Tango Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of material that isn't directly about the Tango here. I see no harm whatsoever in keeping this article. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Dennis Bratland above. The vehicle is notable, and all of the coverage that goes to establishing notability is about the unique aspects of the car. None of the references for the company meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 18 July 2019 (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.