Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple (automobile)

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. The relist seems to have given sufficient time to find sufficient good sources DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (automobile)

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

Declined prod and speedy about what appears to be a hoax. It's hard to search because of the common name, but I did a comprehensive search and I can find no information about this car ever being in existence. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the creator made the article in July 2004 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It wasn't a hoax [1]. However, the article's author was one of those people who didn't worry about such inconveniences as proof, and in 2004, Wikipedia was in its days where sourcing was as optional. There may be some automobile afficionados who want to write a real article about this one, from early 20th century when everyone wanted to be a car manufacturer. For now, I see no reason to keep. Mandsford 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep The page on the Ohio state inspection reports proves that the company existed. While the actual article needs work, I think the underlying topic is notable. But, on the other side, somebody could create a better article later.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mild~~ Keep I once thought this article was a hoax, but I've found several references to it in the last few years. None of them make a good reference for the article, but show that the company was real. It looks like it was one of several automobile companies in Dayton around this time (see Speedwell Motor Car Company and Dayton Electric). The articles on these companies are all very brief. I think a good article on this company is possible, but it will take someone who is interested in Dayton history, and is willing to track down some of the references linked to above. Unfortunately, given the state of the other Dayton automobile company pages, I don't think we have that person on Wikipedia yet.HornColumbia (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article really should have had an orphan tag, but I was able to add a few links to it.HornColumbia (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad to see the information that's added, but the links to your source appear to have been overlooked. It's actually very easy to cite information. One can either put brackets around the url link, or, even better, highlight a link or book reference, then go down to the ref-slashref command next to "Cite your sources" and click on it. It took me more than a year to realize that shortcut. Throw in the word reflist in curly brackets and it's done. Mandsford 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were internal page to page links, not links to external sources.HornColumbia (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and, although it apparently existed, no actual proof of notability. Dayton, Ohio, appears to have had two automobile manufacturers that have articles, so this doesn't even seem to be more than a bit of trivia in Dayton history. I'll admit that the idea of an automobile called an Apple is interesting, and without more, one can only speculate about why it was called that-- perhaps it was red in color, perhaps it was a surname, perhaps it was a small car, or perhaps it wasn't a lemon. Mandsford 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, company can be proved to have existed. Sources will exist (e.g. contemporary newspapers) that can be used to back up info in the article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It did in fact exist as demonstrated by Mandsford. The lack of sources found on the internet is most likely due to the historic nature of the subject, not its lack of notability. --Pink Bull 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedent is to keep automobile brands regardless of age or level of success. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that sources do exist, although being an unsuccessful product from the 1910s it's not wholly surprising that the sources may not be readily available online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRVE. I can't find any evidence of it meeting the general notability guideline, although it may well do, but I'm !voting delete until someone can find a reliable source to back the article's content up. Claritas §

Revised !vote to Keep - clearly meets notability guidelines. Claritas § 14:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reference added to article. I found this reference and added it to the article. I consider any early 20th century manufacturer of automobiles to be notable because of the difficulties in making such a product. Since the subject is now verifiable by a published secondary source, the article should be kept. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work ¢Spender1983. Now who's going to go dig up a photo??? HornColumbia (talk) 15:16, 13 June 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.