Talk:SEMA (association)

Untitled
Who would want to buy thier make-up from a car show?

SEMA's home page claims it attracts 100,000 buyers, but have any non biased reputable sources published their own estimates? SEMA has a strong profit motive to lie about it's demographics. - Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.57.170 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Long list of cars
The long list of cars that has been removed and replaced and removed and replaced several times now, is not supported by the text. There is no indication of why these cars are in a list in this article...the reader guesses that these cars were present at SEMA shows in the various years, but there are lots and lots of cars present at SEMA every year...what makes the cars on the list special or WP:NOTABLE? Also, the scant references for a tiny few of the many cars in the list, were not WP:RS for WP:V. I don't see that the list can stay, per WP:IINFO. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanboy page. We don't get to just throw in the article whatever we think is neato. Of course like anyone I can be wrong and maybe the WP:CONSENSUS goes a different way than I think...this is why we have the talk page! Thank you. 45.63.124.216 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is not supported by the text because it's the simple list of debuted cars by year (like in other motor show articles), what kind of text do you want to see? These cars are in a list in this article because they debuted on this show, presented only the world debuts. And users know that - it's standard list of debuted cars for motor shows on Wikipedia, you can go and see articles about other auto shows on Wikipedia, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_International_Auto_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Auto_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Motor_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Motor_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Auto_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Auto_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_International_Auto_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Motor_Show


 * But why you want to delete this list for SEMA Show? What's the difference? List of debuted cars - it's the simple list, not encyclopedic text. This is not a problem at all, it's normal for Wikipedia auto shows articles. And many of cars in this list has reliable references (not all of course - there are hundreds of cars), but there are about 50 references (and if you go to this links you can see motor show reports with this cars). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.16.44 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't even state why it is relevant to the article. I concur with the comment that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collecton of information.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the slow-motion edit-warring. Do you want the article semi-protected?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: If the list of cars is going to be on the article, it seems like it should at the very least be cited by reliable sources and it needs to be "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" per WP:IINFO. The list seems like it probably qualifies as "discriminate" information per WP:DISCRIMINATE since "a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinction" went into the list. It also seems like it is the standard on Wikipedia to include this information, and it should be noted that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article per WP:NLISTITEM. WP:CITE states that citing sources for material is important when the material is likely to be challenged, but I don't think anyone is disputing whether those cars appeared at those shows. It seems logical to me to include this list and it seems anyone reading this article would be interested in it. In my opinion, it is not WP:FANCRUFT. Because of this, I believe the list should stay, but citations improved and better context added. 217IP (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I opened a RfC on the matter since two third opinions were offered of differing views.217IP (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this article include a list of cars that debuted by year? RfC
There is a list of cars that debuted at SEMA by year. There is a debate as to whether this information is WP:IINFO. 217IP (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include it Yes, the information is useful, informative, and relevant so I say it should be included. Remember: More information is better than less when the information is relevant, referenced, and have citations which can be confirmed. People research things looking for information, and excluding things which might not be entirely within Wiki guidelines is something of a disservice to people doing research. Damotclese (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Include or Split into "List of SEMA automobile[s]/car[s] [models]". It is quite a lot of information, but useful nonetheless. The article needs expansion, and long lists are not content. Eman 235 / talk  01:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If the list is not independently sourced, how are you getting the info? The article already reads excessively 'advert-y', with some fairly questionable assertions 'As part of this event, SEMA and other automotive aftermarket trade groups make-up one of the single largest events on the Las Vegas calendar'. A trade-only car-parts show? The list contributes to that over promotional tone, with neither sources nor context for the info.Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this list should not be in this article. Who says a car is notable just because it happened to be at the SEMA show? If some notable cars, as defined by WP:NOTE and documented per WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS, were launched at SEMA, then those (and only those) could go in a list. If it's a small list, perhaps it could be a part of this article. If it's a big list, perhaps it could be a standalone. But this giant spew of cars that just happened to be shown at SEMA? No. Pogorrhœa (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that notability guidelines do not apply to the content of articles and doesn't really apply here. 217IP (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)