Talk:Corvette leaf spring/Archives/2015/July

Undo redirect
I have undo the redirect without margining of content (WP:D-R). The page where this redirect was discussed did have consensus but only for a merger, not to delete the page. No notifications were posted on the talk page of this article and no article specific editors were informed. While I understand the wish to reduce the number of narrow topic articles, the contents of this article have been notable in the auto community. As evidence I provide two examples from Edmund's. Edmund's specifically linked to this article in one of their Corvette related articles. http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/corvette/2002/long-term-road-test/2002-chevrolet-corvette-z06-the-mystery-of-the-leaf-spring.html. In another case Edmunds ran a short article noting that the C7 Corvette would continue to use leaf springs. That suggests that for those readers the topic is important enough for a mainstream automotive site to discuss it. http://www.edmunds.com/auto-shows/detroit/2013/2014-corvette-will-retain-leaf-spring-suspension.html. Specific concerns about quality can be addressed if those concerns are raised on the talk page. Springee (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

General comment about older articles such as this one
Lukeno94 is correct in saying this article does not meet current Wiki standards for verifiability. I think what is missed here, and this would apply to many older articles, is that when some of this was written Wikipedia wasn't as focused on external citations. The thought at the time was if a bunch of people look at the same text they can come up with a consensus. If I write that the C2 has IRS and no other editors correct we we assume it was right. We didn't actually demand a citation for such information. Citations, which at the the time were largely limited to web links, were used only when editors disagreed. In the leaf spring article an early editor disagreed that the C2 had IRS. Well a picture was found as proof. No one demanded a peer reviewed article on the subject (not that such material was as common on the web back then). The content of this article was largely settled during that period of Wikipedia. Since no one was challenging the content it wasn't updated. When a new editor (based on his home page Lukeno94 was 11 or 12 when this article was started) who fully understands the current Wiki standards sees an old article they might see lots of "unsourced opinion". Well that is true in some cases but in others the material is quite sound but needs citations added to the original sources. The correct procedure, in my opinion, is to add the citation needed markers. Reader will see that the source of the information is in question. However, editors who are familiar with the subject can add the citations thus preventing the loss of that knowledge from Wikipedia. We shouldn't damn old articles to the trash in haste just because they don't meet current standards. Springee (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, can it be verified under the current polices and the onus for that is on the editors who want their information saved not on the readers to wait for them. If not, what is left is what is left and it either is enough to support a stand-alone article or it's not and any usable, verified content can be merged and if someone wants to work on a draft or whatever on their own time, they can do that. There are no grandfathering of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)