Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optare Sigma

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. A discussion to merge can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Sigma

Optare Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No significant coverage that enables this to meet GNG. There is a picture of it in 2 books but that’s it. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content in to
  Optare. Agree coverage is next to nothing however I see no reason to outright delete encyclopedic content. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not opposed to it, but the problem with merging here is that the content is unsourced and there’s already a line of coverage on

Optare which is sourced. I think redirecting would be best. SK2242 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry should've been clearer - I only felt the lead "(The Optare Sigma is a step-entrance single-deck bus body that was built by Optare between 1994 and 1996 on the Dennis Lance chassis.)" should be merged, Ofcourse that sentence alone is unsourced but would rather save than lose. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a picture of it in 2 books but that’s it. If you are of the illusion that all books are on Google Books, but 99.99% aren't, sigh. Offline sources are available, was able to rustle up a few without much effort. Lilporchy (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added 3 sources. One is an unreliable enthusiast bus listings page, one does not even mention the Sigma, and it is unknown how much coverage is in the third source to quality as significant coverage. As it stands this still fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, that's not it – the nomination is quite mistaken. The subject is covered in detail in the History of Optare, as one would expect. Our policy
  WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Andrew Davidson: One source is not enough to meet GNG. Any other sigcov? SK2242 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but five separate publications do. Lilporchy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five seperate publications? Where? And when you list them please tell me how much coverage is in them. SK2242 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five separate publications as listed at

Bus & Coach Preservation, book Companion to Road Passenger Transport History and book The History of Optare, all published by reputable publishers. As to what is in them? Information that backs up what is stated in the article. I'm sure they won't come up to the lofty standards you require, but there they are. Lilporchy (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It’s not what I require, but what policy requires. Notability rests on whether at least 3 of those publications having significant in depth non trivial coverage in them. SK2242 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew and Lilporchy. Offline results are always helpful, especially the one mentioned by Andrew. It applies across all bus models, not just the individual ones nominated at AfD where nominators have supposedly tagged them as not notable. Nightfury 10:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sourced content in to
  Optare. There is not sourcing to support a stand alone article, but sourced content can be merged into main article, the content will be preserved, the subject will not be fragmented, and the target article will be improved.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per above. I concur this topic doesn't warrant its own article, but it should be preserved on some list of this company's vehicles, or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 22 January 2021 (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.