Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright Gemini 2

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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wright Gemini 2

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wright Gemini 2 (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 - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Well-sourced technical article. You won't find coverage about bus models in the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there significant coverage from any other reliable sources then? SK2242 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of significant coverage and so it passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see any evidence of significant coverage, neither in a BEFORE search or in the article. SK2242 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with Wright Eclipse Gemini article. The bus is the Eclipse Gemini 2 described at Wright_Eclipse_Gemini#Second_generation_(2008–2018). However, there's a good deal of information about the bus in the Wright Eclipse Gemini article, especially about export sales, that is not in the Wright Gemini 2 article and there is a lot about the alternative drive systems in the Wright Gemini 2 article that is not in the Wright Eclipse Gemini article. If the articles are kept separate, they need main templates pointing to the other article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This article as about a complete bus, and "Wright Eclipse Gemini 2" is just a body, they are different products. I've never heard anyone stating the Gemini 2 DL/Gemini 2 HEV integral as the "Eclipse Gemini 2" (), but sometimes people omitted the "Eclipse" from "Eclipse Gemini 2" body, just calling it "Gemini 2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SC96 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I’m not sure if Wright Eclipse Gemini meets GNG either. There are a few mentions in books and scholar searches, and this Hong Kong news article does seem to be good coverage, but that’s it. SK2242 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, enough independent cites to pass WP:GNG. Lilporchy (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Which independent cites? And are they significant coverage? SK2242 (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. No objection to a merge discussion if there is an appropriate target article, but the GNG is met so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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.