Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkervoort D8

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 after the article was expanded. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donkervoort D8

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

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

Donkervoort D8: Was created in draft space, and then in article space, which prevents a move back to draft space. Author also created Donkervoort D7. Does not satisfy product notability or general notability. Created by a blocked sockpuppet, but there have been good-faith edits since then, so not an open-and-shut G5. See analysis of sources below.

			Independent and reliable	Significant
1	AutoExpress	Information Sheet	Probably not independent	No
2	BBC.com	Web page that cannot be loaded	Appears not	May be advertising
3	Car and Driver	Product Review	Yes	Yes
4	Fastestlaps	Product Information	Seems not independent	No
5	DesignBoom	Product Information	Seems not	No
6	Donkervoort.com	Own Web Site	No	Yes, but not independent
7	Donkervoort.com	Own Web Site	No	Yes, but not independent

Only one independent significant source, does not satisfy notability, and the work of a sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Car & Driver and BBC articles seem to give the topic enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. But since the article is written by a sock, someone would need to validate what's written matches the sources (don't have a good understanding of cars to do this myself). Jumpytoo Talk 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, while copying the better sources, ALL of these model articles into Donkervoort. We do not need ANY such stub article on models. If it's just a paragraph, it should not be spun off! gidonb (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while added by a sock, C&D and Auto Express are dependable enough sources. BBC page poses no problems for me. I will be happy to add more sources and verify any reliable ones already there. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available. The BBC one loads fine (I think [1] is another version of it], and you can find more with a simple Google News search. Maybe it could be merged back into the Donkervoort article, but it seems fine as a stand-alone one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after article was expanded. Notability was not my concern. Information governance considerations were and these have been dealt with by now. gidonb (talk) 01:23, 25 May 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.