Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automobile Industry in Germany


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Automobile Industry in Germany

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no point for the existence of a specific article for automobiles when the article "Industry in Germany" doesn't yet exist. Also, of all branches of German Industy, automobile is the only one to have a specific article, there is no reason for this either. If this article were to cover the "History" of Automobile Industry in Germany, I could understand the point of it existing. As of now this entire article is simply a list of 10 out of date tables that should be present elsewhere on Wikipedia. This lack of reason to exist is one reason why is has been so rarely edited. EconomistBR 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Right now that article is utterly abandoned and rarely edited so much so that I removed a 4-month old vandalism on that page. The article's title is not being covered, there is simply the nice title followed by some out dated tables. EconomistBR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Once someone had the time and will to find enough information he would create that article again and cover it in an appropriate manner. We are not obliged to keep or to have articles on every bit of " notable topic", that would be madness. EconomistBR (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the tables themselves provide a certain level of valid information (even a few years old, they are not so old that you don't pick up a certain order of magnitude for production), but the article is entirely unsourced, and I don't know where the author got the information from. I am unsure on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the new article is clearly written in an encyclopedic manner, so keep that. (And a big thank you to the person/people who took the effort to rewrite it.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a stub on a notable subject. Other stuff does not exist is not a reason to delete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the sort of topic that an encyclopedia needs to cover. Even if the article is not in good shape now, it can be improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the automobile industry is very important in Germany and I am sure that a full, improved article would be welcomed by many. Keep and improve to a full article - Dumelow (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine I could vote to "keep" if either one of you Dumelow, Colonel Warden and Metropolitan90 makes a commitment to rewrite that article it may stay otterwise it should be deleted. So who is going to rewrite it? Or all you 3 will do is slap some TAGs and Templates on it?
 * Keep definitely a notable topic. Yes, I will undertake to improve and reference the article (I'm working on it now), but may I remind the nominator that AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Neglect of an article is not a reason for deletion, and there's nothing wrong with placing nag tags and templates, in fact the lack of these on the article may have led to its neglect. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete What's the point of keeping a "notable topic" if that topic is: 1) abandoned 2) out dated 3) not coming close to adequately covering the subject at hand? It's better not to have an article at all. This article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned. It was therefore reducing the quality of this Encyclopedia.
 * Comment This last !vote is from the nominator. If you take a look at the article now, I've rewritten to the most stringent referenced standards, and had done so an hour before you wrote the above comment. If you agree, perhaps you will consider withdrawing your nomination. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was notable when nominated, but it now meets any reasonable standard for a basic article. Nominator uses WP:EFFORT ("abandoned") and other arguments that are not reasonable rationales for deletion ("outdated", "not adequate" -- see update, expand). AFD is not cleanup, it is for articles that cannot reasonably be improved. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely notable. It should probably be renamed Automobile industry in Germany (capitalization). Names of all such country articles should probably be standardized and the articles linked. There are also articles on Japanese automobile industry, Automobile industry in China, Automobile industry of the Soviet Union, Automobile industry in India, Automobile industry in Italy, Automobile Industry in the USA, British motor industry, Korean automobile industry.--Boson (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the fact that Canley deleted and rewrote the entire article I am withdrawing the AfD nomination for this article. My nomination was justified, this article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned so much so that Canley deleted all the information that existed on that article. User Dhartung distorts my rationale, abandoned doesn't mean "nobody is working on it" and "not adequate" has never meant "expand". This idea that the topic notability alone entitles it to exist on Wikipedia is too simplistic, articles should be minimally informative for them to allowed to exist. EconomistBR (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (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.