Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasp Motorcycles

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The result was Keep; withdrawn by nominator after expansion and sourcing improvements; no remaining delete !votes. 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Motorcycles[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to show that this company meets the notability guideline - WP:CORP. Unless secondary sources exist to demonstrate its importance, it should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. All citations, apart from a telephone listing, are from the company's own website. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep. Good job on providing references to prove notability! Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advert, no third-party coverage beyond directory listings. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been able to add some better refs, includung the book: Classic British scramblers: all post-war two-stroke and four-stroke scrambles motorcycles, AJS to Wasp which definately established notability. Pl;ease note that this article was never intended to be an 'advert' for Wasp, we are just trying to document the few remaining British Motorcycle manufacturers - so if anyone can help improve the article it would be very much appreciated Thruxton (talk) Thruxton (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, change to neutral. Advertising problems are solved. Still not convinced enough has been done to meet notability, but it's an improvement on what there was. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like the rescue effort is a good one. This is now a well referenced article, much better than a lot of other stubs out there. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks better sourced now. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improved sourcing. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: ~~Weak delete~~ depth of coverage is (still) minimal, and restricted mainly to enthusiast sources/websites etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not any more. Now several published books added as references. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Road Giants!: Heroes of 1960s Motorcycle Sport is still-still the only substantive source. But its chapter on the topic is probably enough to turn this into a 'keep'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination based on the Off-Road Giants reference which just about provides enough coverage for the article to be kept. Apologies for not spotting it before "wasp motorcycles" as a quote doesn't bring it up in gbooks. The sourcing is still a bit inadequate, but my deletion rationale is now moot. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (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.