Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAN NGxx3F

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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAN NGxx3F[edit]

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

Per WP:PRODUCT this should be covered at the company article. Does not seem worth a stand-alone article without going into trivial and unencyclopedic technical details. Charles (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe Merge into MAN Lion's City). As the article looks like now it may seem not very notable, with only mention of the 41 built for Singapore. However the product has been available in Europe since 1998, and without knowing the exact number actually built, the serial numbers had reached around 7-800 before those mentioned. So the total number built is probably somewhere between 500 and 1000, over a span of 17 years. I did not add any details from any other countries, as it was hard to find anything reliable. It appears that a lot was delivered to Spain, but I have no clue where to find a reliable source for anything from that country. Here is a list of some variations and bodywork, but it is very incomplete and is fully user-made (without any moderation), so it is by no means reliable: MAN NGxx3F (A24) on Phototrans.

However, I could agree that having a separate article for every single bus chassis model from MAN would mean a lot of very narrow articles about products that have a very narrow market. Even the naming scheme (type designation) used by MAN isn't very user friendly. When applied to the data of a bus, they even include the power output, and many people treat those as separate products, even if it's just different configurations. What is even worse is that many people, including the distributors across the world, have started using the internal VIN codes (like A22, A24, A34, A95, etc.) instead of the model names, and they are just a number and explains absolutely nothing. Anyway, it may not need an article of its own, but it absolutely deserves a mention, as busfans across the world seek to Wikipedia to learn about buses they see, ride or read about. The fact that this chassis model is derived from the Lion's City range of products makes it somehow okay to merge it in there. Then I would suggest making a section in the Lion's City article named something like "Chassis derived from Lion's City", or something similar, and then put this and the other related chassis types in there. This also includes the MAN NDxx3F and the MAN NLxx3F for consistency. As the NDxx3F article states, there are a lot fewer buses built, and in fact the article describes three different products that happen to have the same name or type designation. One of them was only built as a prototype and no serial production. The NLxx3F has, according to serial numbers, been built in around 5 000 units so far, but its connection to Lion's City is exactly the same as the NGxx3F, so letting it on its own because it is more widely known would be very inconsistent.

So to sum it up, I would like to keep the article as it is, and hopefully it will get some more text if anybody find a good source, or alternatively I accept that all three articles MAN NGxx3F, MAN NDxx3F and MAN NLxx3F (and the not yet created MAN NMxx3F) are merged into MAN Lion's City under a section about related chassis. Most of the info in the infoboxes can be discarded or just written into the other text. Those are the only logical solutions to me. To merge it into the manufacturer article as suggested seems not a good idea, as the Lion's City article is more related.Bergenga (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than technical manuals, the only sources I find are mirrors of this WP article. The two sources on the article are 1) the sales brochure from the company itself and2) a blog post. I can't do any better than that. Note that the (long) Keep !vote above is by the author of the page (Bergenga). LaMona (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I wanna keep this there is literally nothing anywhere to even verify its existence, Merging IMHO would be pointless and wouldn't really fit it in anywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is not a notable product. Deleting this article will merely create yet another red link in the company's article. (Actually, it would create three additional red links, as the company article gives a separate listing to three variations.) Frankly, that company article reads more like a product catalog than an encyclopedia article and would be much improved by the removal of its extensive listing of products. As for the individual products themselves, I don't see any notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing any signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 5 October 2015 (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.