Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned vehicle (2nd nomination)


 * 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 article may be decrepit, but it's not abandoned. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned vehicle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dictionary definition dressed up with what will be (when expanded) the most tiresome WP:NOTHOWTO compilation of local regulations on earth.  E Eng  01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge salvageable content with and redirect to Decrepit car An abandoned car is often a decrepit car and there should be a few mentions of that in the latter article, though without the confusing statements like the Texas line, which could easily call a car in a park-and-ride abandoned when it often isn't so by any means.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest Decrepit car is a ridiculous concept for an article as well. It too is a random pile of miscellany.  E Eng  04:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To the esteemed contenders in the round: I surely hope that no-one will deny the existence of either unused cars or their abandonment. I definitely mean to add statistics to make the point more evident. Besides, could you have pulled the criteria for abandonment out of your sleeve? I couldn't. Would you have guessed that the criteria differ so much? Not me. Even knowing the variety of dos and don'ts that exists is valuable. Afterthought: there is nothing from my point of view that contradicts pulling the information about unused and unrecycled! cars together into one article. Mere denial of the fact is not an option. Just as with all other waste. -- Kku (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:TNT Most local authorities have teams which will find and tow away such vehicles, normally with a reporting system, perhaps a rewrite is in order 100% necessary, but the topic is relevant. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITEXISTS. Any sources treating this in an encyclopedic manner?  E Eng  14:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, after checking it seems Halsbury's has several sections on it. it even in one part says more or less the above: "Where it appears to a local authority[1] that a motor vehicle[2] in its area is abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway, it is the duty of the authority to remove the vehicle[3]." A Guy into Books (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "There's a law on it" is not encyclopedic coverage.  E Eng  21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Halsbury's is an encyclopedia (encyclopedia of law). But thats not my point, my point is that this topic goes beyond WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:DICTDEF, as there is enough information to merit a thorough examination of the topic in reliable secondary source(s). therefore by extension this article ought to be kept and improved. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It just occured to me that you might have thought of Halsbury's Statutes rather than Halsbury's Laws of England which is the work I was (rather ambiguously) referring to. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It still appears to be just a digest of legal provisions. How in the world is Where it appears to a local authority[1] that a motor vehicle[2] in its area is abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway, it is the duty of the authority to remove the vehicle anything like something that should be in an article? At the very least, this should be merged with Decrepit car as suggested above. Beyond that, I give up. This is just too silly to argue about.  E Eng  22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a legal term of art that many of our core readers will be looking for when they search the Internet. It is perfectly fine as a start; it is well-referenced albeit incomplete. A decrepit vehicle is not the same thing. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by at Afd a mere eight months ago. Is there a reason why this wasn't brought t speedy deletion per WP:G4? speedy delete on that basis -- unless someone can tell us if this is manifestly better or different than the last version. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason was is that I didn't know. I wish I had. Is it too late?  E Eng  15:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, it can be hard for us to tell. Always a good idea to check the talk page or pages linked to for a sign of a previous Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead section is exactly the same, but the version I deleted has nothing but the lead section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jo-Jo. Striking through my !vote above. Current article should be judged on its own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Can people please stop saying to merge this with Decrepit car, if a millionaire parked a £100,000 ferrari in my local street and left it there for 4 weeks after the tax ran out then it would be an abandoned car, but hardly a decrepit car. the two topics are completely separate. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So I'm now envisioning an article that surveys long-term overtime parking regulations worldwide?  E Eng  22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not far off, this kind of remedy is normally only used where a car wouldn't be towed due to parking violations, as that would happen before the council tow it away due to abandonment. It needn't be complex, a simple overview of the law and process of some main countries would be fine. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, a mass of WP:OR with some WP:SYNTH thrown in.  E Eng  22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I could make perfectly OK stub out of this, but it would only cover England and Wales, since my Westlaw subscription doesn't cover anywhere else. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * QED.  E Eng  23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep How is anyone seriously suggesting that the situation described here isn't both widespread, and described at length in a variety of local bylaws? Some historical and international survey of this seems encyclopedically relevant to me. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And what will be the sources for the historical and international survey, other than the OR and SYNTH already offered?
 * Newspapers would work for the UK. The Bristol local paper, esp. late '90s, took rather an interest with vehicles abandoned in one park location. The national press has been supportive in recent years for the government's "we're crushing anything found untaxed" campaigns. Why do you claim there are no sources? Do you have anything to prove such a negative? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe something changed while I wasn't looking, but usually at AfD it's the positive that needs proving. Whatcha got beyond the Bristol local paper's interest with vehicles abandoned in one park location?  E Eng  01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Belfast, Bristol and Oxford (Blackbird Leys) would be good places to start from for a 1990s context, when TWOCing became a particular problem in the UK, leading to large numbers of abandoned vehicles (to the point when councils had to act) and car security needed to be improved. Years following that, and the technical ability to give pedestrian traffic wardens wireless computer access, led to the clamp-down [sic] on untaxed vehicles. Both of these are solid events to hang article narrative on. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 20:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Every major municipality has had to deal with this issue allocating major recourses to it and every one has in-depth coverage to this issue.  OR?  Just do a current news search of "Abandoned vehicles" and you'll see..  Further evidence of passing WP:GNG are the Minnesota Legislature created a very extensive in-depth report on the topic of abandoned vehicles.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published very in-depth analysis of abandoned vehicles in this book.  There are many more in-depth reports on abandoned vehicles and the impact they have I could list here.  I'm surprised anyone thought this wasn't an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is pretty awful, and to some extent incorrect (many abandoned vehicles are perfectly sound but have been dumped after being stolen for example) but there is a notable topic here. --Michig (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.