Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfa Romeo 169


 * 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   merge to Alfa Romeo 166. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 169

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article that is solely based on speculations, since 2008 there are rumors for a 169 to come, but since then, nothing has happened and it's highly unlikely that the 169 will ever go into production. Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - although someone could justifiably claim that it meets notability guidelines, let's be realistic here; all of the sources are pure speculation. If there was verifiable evidence of a prototype, then I'd be arguing to keep this article, but things like, , , and  are all based on pure speculation, and most of them didn't come true anyway; there are mock-up images, but nothing beyond that.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with that, considering that those rumors and speculations are going around since 2007 (when the production of the 166 stopped) nobody who's realistic will expect that (after more than half a decade) a successor to the 166 will go into production within the next years - despite some sources claiming this since 2007/2008 over and over again.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Alfa Romeo 166. The rumours of a successor to the 166 have sufficient coverage for a small "Possible successor" section (although not necessarily that exact title). There isn't enough that can be said to sustain a whole article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In case the above isn't clear, I mean for the section to be about the rumours of a successor not about a car that doesn't exist. It doesn't need to be more than a few sentences. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Thryduulf. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Lukeno 94 and Jean-Éric Poclain; nothing more than speculation since the mid 2000s.--TCCE (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Notability is also disputed.--TCCE (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that was more User:Shirt58 attempting to do things by the book, rather than what was potentially the most sensible route - the one the nominator initially took (before they then tried to speedily delete it in a very inappropriate manner). Regardless, I don't think there's any issue of the notability of the speculation in reality; but they didn't even build a public 169 prototype, so it doesn't justify its own article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes the notability of this article equal to zero, when there's no prototype or development mule ever sighted. As far as I remember, the last time I read about the OneSixNine was back in 2006 when the lifecycle came to an end, and sales of the OneSixSix dropped dramatically - and (compared to the competition) sales figures of it have never even been that high.--TCCE (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The car isn't notable, no. Rumours of the car though are sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an appropriate article, and I think that the Alfa 166 article is the most appropriate for that. Given that we have some verified content about the rumours already it is better to merge that to where they should be rather than delete and start again. Whether we do that or not, the rumours mean that "Alpha Romeo 169" is a likely search term that should be redirected to where we have content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but under the title "Speculation about the Alfa Romeo 169" or something like that.  An automotive equivalent of vapourware for sure, but arguably notable autovapourware, analogous to Development of Duke Nukem Forever. (Question to myself: if the game had never been released, would that article about its development pass the requirements for a stand alone article? Answer: I dunno. Probably?)  I agree that "the car itself" is not notable - after all it, never existed.  I agree with Thryduulf: "Rumours of the car though are sufficiently notable to be mentioned in an appropriate article". Not to misrepresent this: it was an argument for merge and redirect, not keep. I would go a step further: that pure speculation itself would appear to me to merit a stand-alone article - the car that never was, but was nevertheless had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.  (WP:INVOLVED, etc: I should point out declined the speedy deletion, added a notability tag, and also assisted the nominator with nominating this article for deletion. I'm also obviously in favor of - 500+ and counting, all waiting for experts to step in an fix 'em up ! - little well-referenced stubs.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really not a subject matter expert here, but I'm not clearly seeing there is the potential for an article about the rumours to be more than a stub. In such cases I prefer sections rather than stubs, but this is a philosophical difference rather than something that can be hashed out in a single AfD! If there is to be a separate article though, then I'd much rather it have the simple title it presently has than anything more convoluted. My reasoning for this is that such an article will be the primary topic for the search term "Alfa Romeo 169" (unless something changes in the future, we can deal with that if it happens), and so such a title will be where people expect to find the article. It is the job of the article lead, not the title, to explain the subject (the title's job is simply to identify the subject recognisably and unambiguously). Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can assure you as someone reasonably experienced in this subject area, that keeping this article would be a bad idea and a terrible precedent. There has been speculation on and off for 40 years about a true E-Type successor (until the F-Type came out), with various concept cars and mockups being produced, and we don't have an article on that - which would be infinitely more notable than the 169 rumours. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 22 January 2014 (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.