Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison (car)
It is not, the case that editors can just claim -- absent of actual proof -- that sources exist.  They must actually produce them to meet , and the burden of proof is on editors seeking to retain the article.  For all we know, after all, those "sources" are mere advertisements and press releases, and I'd be more trusting if there weren't recent cases of chicanery from an editor very ready to claim that others don't follow WP:BEFORE.  So before I changed my vote, I would want to see what ''precise'' reliable sources any keep proponent claimed provided the |significant coverage to the subject the GNG requires, quoting publication dates and page numbers. (Just FYI, I am a cardholder at the Boston Public Library|municipal library with the largest collection in the Western Hemisphere, and am happy to verify any claimed evidence myself.)Otherwise, one can only conclude that they haven't actually looked at the sources they claim exist
— [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]], 04:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV (Wikipedia:Notability)