Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rallye rim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rallye rim[edit]
- Rallye rim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concerns: WP:V, WP:PRODUCT WP:NOTDIC, WP:V, WP:PRODUCT Wcheck (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the proposer has put forward a valid reason for deletion so I cannot support the nomination. Google clearly shows the term Rallye Rim in use to at least indicate that the term is indeed an alternative for "Rally wheel", and if establishing this more formally cannot be achieved then the article could still be renamed "Rally wheel", for which there is much information. WP:PRODUCT clearly doesn't apply because this is not a particular manufacturers product. However, it does seem this article is no more than a dictionary entry and as it has not become more that than in the 18 months it has existed, it probably isn't going to. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not sure about the nom's reasons as to why the topic fails those guidelines. A great amount of detail in some books [1] [2][3]. They seem popular today due to restoration interest in muscle cars.--Oakshade (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just because an article is succinct doesn't mean it's inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2011 (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.