Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright Endeavour

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. L Faraone 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Endeavour

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

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my previous comment. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with other bus models listed here it needs some work, but once again, we should be aiming to improve it rather than delete it, unless is not realistically possible to cite reliable secondary sources, which I'm convinced it will be. See my extended comment on concurrent AfD on Cityranger for more detail.Quackdave (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a more general Wright buses article. (note: I have supported this as a merge target below). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrightbus, a page isn't necessary for each of their products. J04n(talk page) 10:02, 2 April 2013 (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.