Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple electric car project (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Apple electric car project
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRYSTAL re-nomination after "no consensus" followed by "keep". Policy states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

This event is not almost certain to take place, and while it may be WP:N because Apple is a large company and rumors can spread quickly through news, Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors. See AFD discussion on an article for the Samsung Galaxy S6 before Samsung had officially announced the S6, and the S6 was just a rumor. Appable (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete I had to admit wondering if the speculation itself from generally reliable sources isn't itself notable. However, per WP:CRYSTAL which states "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content," specifically in regard to products, I have to lean toward delete. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Per Renominating for deletion, shouldn't you have waited at least six months before re-nominating? --  Non-Dropframe   talk   22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an essay/recommendation. There's no required waiting period - WP:RELIST. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - first, the subject of this article is a product, not a WP:EVENT. An event is the 2018 Tour de France. Second, subject easily meets GNG by extensive coverage that overcomes any complaint about "rumors" or WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is a very significant difference between articles based on "rumors" and articles based on sources whose names are not published for obvious reasons. In this article, The Wall Street Journal printed specifically that Apple has hundreds of employees working on the electric car for a project named Titan. Not "rumored to be" working on, or "considering" working on, or "it would be great if they started working on", but they are currently working on, as in fact. They didn't read that on a message board or hear it from someone who knows someone in Cupertino who has a really strong hunch. I don't know anything about the Samsung Galaxy S6, but I'm guessing that at the time it was deleted, the S6 was not the subject of articles in the WSJ, the BBC, Time, Forbes, Reuters, the Sydney Morning Herald, and Bloomberg. And those are the sources already in the article - I didn't even need to look for others. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." There are many different sources reporting conflicting news about the state of the electric car. It might be notable, but at its core it's all "speculation and rumor" since the company has never released any statement about the product. Therefore, it's not "appropriate encyclopedic content".Appable (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apple does not need to release any statement about the product. Where does it say that until a primary source releases a statement about a subject, everything printed about it is all speculation and rumor? That's silly. Nor is this a "short article that consists only of product announcement information." And as I pointed out, the WSJ has clear details that in no way are positioned or described as a rumor. If you personally choose to doubt that it's true, that is your choice, just the same way you could disregard anything that's printed anywhere, but that's not relevant to Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Insisting the WSJ is not accurate because nobody else has that same information is also not the way Wikipedia operates either; there is no guideline that says any piece of information must be confirmed by two or more reliable sources before it can be included. And really, The Wall Street Journal? I really can't think of a more solid reliable source out there, especially when it comes to an American business. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Samsung Galaxy S6 had the same sources discussing it. However, consensus was to remove the article because it was still backed on speculation and rumors or "insider reports" that may or may not be legitimate. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, but it's still reporting on facts which can't be verified easily. Appable (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't view the original Samsung S6 article, so I can't see if the same sources discussed the Samsung S6 with the same extensive coverage that would have also met WP:GNG. I did notice that not a single person in either AfD claimed GNG. It would seem like, if Samsung Galaxy S6 had been the source of any particularly significant coverage, somebody who created and/or worked on either article would, over the course of those AfDs, tried to claim it had some solid sources. Nobody stood up for the article at all: Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (closed October 6, 2014) or Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (2nd nomination) (closed 00:09, 1 March 1, 2015, ironically the day the Samsung S6 was officially released and the current article was created). So I tried my best to search for this pre-March coverage you said exists at what I think are the two strongest sources: Time and WSJ. For Time, this article from September 2014 on "Best Phones for Fall 2014" was the only mention before March 1, and it was a brief mention (list of phone makes and models, and noting Samsung people might want to hold out for the S6 that is "likely" to come out in 2015). I searched WSJ.com and there was nothing before 8 January 2015, and only a handful of hits before March 1, most of which were just about Samsung's financials, quarterly earnings forecast, business with Qualcomm. You can see for yourself. However, there was one article on 2 February 2015 that was very specifically about the Samsung Galaxy S6!!!! The article they published was: "Samsung Is Going to Launch a New Galaxy Smartphone on March 1". Not Samsung might be going to release it, not Samsung is rumored to be aiming for March 1, but a matter of fact: Samsung is going to launch the Galaxy on March 1 so let the rumors end. Of course I haven't seen all the other articles before March 1 in the same sources you say gave the same coverage to the S6, but if I had seen that second AfD, I probably would have pointed out the obvious like I'm doing now: the WSJ is not going to publish "speculation and rumors" as fact. They published that article and the Apple electric car article because they have verified the information they were putting their name on and have verified it to be fact. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep—nothing has changed in the article since the last AfD to warrant a new nomination. In fact, looking at what's been added, we have more sources confirming the notability under WP:GNG. Even if Apple tomorrow issued a press release to say that the project were cancelled, it would still be a notable topic of discussion in the news media suitable for inclusion here. We have articles on proposed roads like County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan) or Illiana Expressway that haven't entered construction and are only under study or development. An electric car under development by Apple is really no different than a road under study.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:57, 3 June 2015 (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.