Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City car


 * 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. Though people agree that the article needs improvement.  Sandstein  06:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

City car

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Incomplete AfD process. No reason given by the nominator, User:Guyonthesubway. I am completing the AfD process for this user and am officially neutral, but I would suggest that an "unreferenced" tag be added to the article before deletion. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Apparently the macro didn't complete correctly.

Anyhow, this article represent an undocumented neologism. The term 'City Car' is unreferenced and doesnt exist. Unless some sources can be provided that anyone refers to this class of vehicle as a 'City Car' the article should be removed. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose — agree entirely that an unreferenced tag should be added, and the article improved with references. But the article is clearly about a "real thing", i.e. a category which is mentioned all over the motoring media, and if deleted would be an unhelpful omission since there are articles about many other car classification categories. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! So find some of these mentions in the motoring media. Especially if they define what it means.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The fact that the article is about a "real thing" does not justify keeping it: I am quite surprised to see that anyone who has been editing Wikipedia for over two years can fail to realise that. On the other hand if the category is "mentioned all over the motoring media" then it should be easy to find examples from reliable sources as references. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - please refrain from getting personal... As regards a "real thing", the point there is that this phrase is not a neologism, but rather a classification which is used to signify cars of a certain size/capability and for a certain market. I am highly confident sources can easily be linked and it's simply a matter of nobody having spent the time on it. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * About that, can anyone at least verify the article's first sentence ("A city car (or urban car) is an European classification for automobiles equal to or smaller than superminis")? I'm having trouble finding any sources for this statement. — Rankiri (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - No reason to delete this, as it covers the well established A-segment below North American subcompacts and European superminis. However, it does need references. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please find some source that defines the 'A-segment' and refers to it as a 'City Car'. Otherwise the article should be removed as a neologism.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there is no need to delete it we can just rename it if thats big problem to you. --Typ932 T&middot;C 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont have any source that even suggest that the A-segment exists... except a couple of casual mentions..... Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep here is one possible reference Polargeo (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V - seems to be a term observed in community of interest with no attribution as claims and no reliable secondary sources. Article also cross references other articles that have the same problem and the references supplied are contradictory (This article states "A city car (or urban car) is an European classification" and Car classification shows the Euro NCAP as "Supermini". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - While city cars exist, the article is unreferenced and make it seem as there really is such a standardized category. From what I understand that's not true, and the definition of a city car has changed over the years, recently it means a small car which has limited engine power or is electric propulsed and is green. The concept of what is a city car is what a bicycle is in China. -RobertMel (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed to Deletion; Just because sources for classification for this class of car can't be found, doesn't mean this article should be deleted (Regushee (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Actually... according to wikipedia's standards, it does. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But due to the fact you don't have consensus, so far, it isn't going to happen. (Regushee (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
 * How about finding any WP:RS sources that discuss the subject directly and in a non-trivial manner? — Rankiri (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What may happen, maybe by me, is someone taking a WP:BRD axe to the article and knocking it back to a stub. Its totally unreferenced and seems to be pure WP:OR. It could then be expanded from there, if possible. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this is one of car classifications main group --Typ932 T&middot;C 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources? — Rankiri (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Google?? --Typ932 T&middot;C 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to get sarcastic. Didn't you see people asking questions about the accuracy of that statement? I spent half an hour trying to find WP:RS sources for the subject without any luck. As a European car enthusiast, perhaps you could provide us with some further information about it? — Rankiri (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I spent five minutes and got these. You must be rubbish at searching: NY Times article in 2005 (defines it, suggests first city car, notes that it is a well known concept in Europe) - Auto Express award category - Top Gear award category - BusinessCar award category - 10 Best City Cars feature in The Independent - 5 Best City Cars feature on Yahoo - Fiat says that the 1959 Fiat 600 was "our first true city car" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.37.186.98 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)  — 174.37.186.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Talk about rubbish. THe NYT article initially puts the term in quotation marks and has no clear definition of the subject. Auto Express uses its own definition: "Our definition of a top-class urban runabout is a model that fits in perfectly with a daily commute, is designed to slot into the tightest city spots and doesn’t make too many demands on your budget." TopGear call Toyota Prius the City Car of the Year. I'm not a car expert, but I'm pretty sure that Toyota Prius is a mid-size sedan that doesn't exactly fit any of the given definitions. As for BusinessCar, Independent, Yahoo and Fiat, none of these sources discuss the subject in any significant detail. — Rankiri (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres not clear definitions for supercars, luxury cars, family cars, Pony cars, grand tourers, sports cars, either. Doesn't mean the terms dont exist, or that we should pretend they dont exist by deleting the articles about them. The NYT and Fiat links show that, at 50+ years old, "city car" isnt a neologism. The other sources dont discuss them in any particular detail because its such a common term that they dont have to. The OP claimed it was an undocumented neologism and doesnt exist. I showed otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.37.186.98 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussed claim, however, is that it is a European classification for automobiles equal to or smaller than superminis. The problem with the article is that it meticulously describes the comparative proportions, sizes, history and various crossovers of "standard city cars" without citing any sources. If most of its information is WP:OR and the term itself doesn't have a clear definition, it really doesn't make any sense to keep an article that claims that it does. If "city car" is not an actual classification in European auto circles, the article can either be turned into a redirect or be trimmed of all unverifiable material and made into a stub according to Fountains of Bryn Mawr's earlier suggestion. — Rankiri (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term has been around for decades, & is no less "loose" than "pony car", "muscle car". or "supercar", which all seem to vary depending on who's talking. It's a valid topic, even if ill-defined.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * as it is 'ill-defined' it is not wikipedias place to define it. Thats why its a neologism.  Thats why it should be deleted or turned into a redirect to somewhere else.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With this ideology we should delete almost whole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_classifications category --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "ideology" happens to be WP:V, and yeah a category such as category Car_classifications which only has one (mostly ignored) reliable reference and a so-so reference, nither of which mention "City Car" BTW, has big problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You dont even seem to understand whats the difference between category or article... --Typ932 T&middot;C 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V is "strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception". WP:CAT "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"  ......any questions? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said you dont understand that I was speaking the category not the article, clear? --Typ932 T&middot;C 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "clear" is achieved through putting forward suggestions based on reliable sources, staying on the subject per WP:TALK, and NOT making negative comments about other editors per WP:CIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you started the negative comments btw, dont try to be too clever... --Typ932 T&middot;C 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per IP174.37.186.98, Type932, et al. There are plenty of Reliable sources, and while not every source will define the term, they all discuss it. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * great! Go find us some. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One minute search http://fwd.five.tv/fifth-gear/best-in-class/top-3-city-cars --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep searching "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: firstly, as you've just said we're looking for sources about the term; we're not looking specifically for a dictionary definition of the term. Or are we/you? And a second point: let's not jump to any conclusions just because Google doesn't come up with anything. Personally I don't have time to go trawling through magazines and books just now, but as others have alluded to, the term definitely comes up in tables and lists of sizes and classes in magazines (which aren't freely online because they're commercial products of course), particularly I remember seeing it in an article which discussed the interesting phenomenon of size-creep, where model ranges get bigger over time for mostly marketing/competition reasons (e.g. the original Ford Cortina being more like the size of a late Ford Escort.) I'll look it up at some point... and yes, these articles are reliable secondary sources, because the motoring press pretty much defines these segments. (The manufacturers doing so wouldn't be a secondary source anyway, right?) So in the meantime let's not get carried away with deletion, and go with the trimming of the article idea. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, We are looking for a definition, if it does not have a reliably sourced definition, then it is not encyclopedic. Even with a definition this term may only belong in the Wiktionary i.e. there is nothing more you can reliably say about the term than "it is used and seems to mean this". Google can find allot and miss allot, but when Google searches come up with zero reliable sources that says something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. No matter how horrible I find the article -despite having written a considerable part of it-, it should be kept because the term exists. EuroNCAP doen't distinguish between A-segment (city cars) and B-segment (supermini) cars, but that doesn't mean European press and manufacturers ignore the difference. Delete the unreferenced content if you like, but the concept is as real as supercar or leisure activity vehicle. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. so what exactly -is- the concept? There's no distinquishing features between a supermini and a 'city car'.   The Smart is considered a supermini.... its very amorphous and we shouldn't go around defining tersm.  If anything this should be a redirect to a compact car article and a paragraph there.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the others. This should've been marked as unreferenced FIRST and then Afd. Go thru the process folks.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If you click the Google news search, and Google book search at the top of the AFD, you can find plenty of times a vehicle was referred to as a city car. What European countries specifically refer to it as this?  Is it just the UK?  If its called this in any non-English speaking nations, then you'd have to search for it in there to find any references.   D r e a m Focus  22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In German is called Stadtauto. Here is one of many news articles calling it that, as a type of car.  "The Smart city car will debut in the U.S. with an electric motor."  Plenty of stuff to find out there if anyone is sincerely not convinced this is a type of car classification.   D r e a m Focus  22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There may be a source. Piero Casucci, in Northey (ed) World of Automobiles (1974, Vol 4, pp.383-6) describes city cars & claims for a distinction from the microcars of postwar Europe. It's not the best source, but...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Start again The problem with this article and with all the other articles about car classification is that we're dealing with marketing terms as precise and specific as big and little. City Car isn't a neologism, but it isn't a precise quantitative measure either, its just a common noun. City car was originally used as a term to describe any car used in the city, the size of the car wasn't an issue. By the 1960's magazines and newspapers used it to refer to small cars like the Mini or this type of thing . However, as this 1970 ad for a 1971 Buick Centurion shows there was no agreed definition. It's only in the last 10-15 years that magazines and individual manfacturers have needed to move beyond compact, midsize and large as comparative standards for size, but it's all guesstimates. In my view the current article is not worth salvaging because it refers to other things like A-segment as if this also had some agreed, universally understood standard. It doesn't, it's just smaller than B-segment. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is that this article defines a term with no backup. Most of the so-called references that people have cited in this discussion refer to cars that NCAP referes to as supermini's with no reference to a category called 'city car'.  If you'd care to distinguish between cars that can be used in the city and those that can't.... well lets not even go there. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that since the last time I visited the NCAP site that as of 2009, they now only use four specific car classification terms: passenger car, MPV, off-roader, roadster and pickup. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some more examples of the term's accepted use in at reliable secondary sources: 81.178.67.229 (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifth Gear television programme reviews the city car segment
 * Auto Express magazine chooses the best city car
 * Autocar magazine presents Vauxhall's "city car"
 * CAR magazine presents Aston Martin's "city car"
 * The problem with citing examples of "usage" is that it is not an acceptable method to verify a topic since it is creating an article by analysis, synthesis and original research (i.e. I saw these examples of the word being used and I therefore determine this is the definition). What is needed is a published source defining the concept, not using the word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its easier to try find source for segments than this city car term, here is some urls using segments name, only need to find better source for segment classification and then rename this page http://www.jato.com/PressReleases/Small%20car%20segment%20dominates%20europe%27s%20biggest%20markets%2016.11.2007.pdf http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1109&format=HTML&aged=&language=null&guiLanguage=en --Typ932 T&middot;C 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find sources for both, the question is do the terms mean anything specific? Mighty Antar (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * VERY Strong Keep. It may not be well sourced in it's current version, but my review of news sources shows that the term is in use in the media. Here, the London Times says (in 2009) that Aston Martin is creating a city car. Here the term is used by asiaone.com to describe a Mitsubishi electric car. And here the Sydney Morning Herald says in 2008 that Toyota is unveiling one. Here the Independent uses (AND DEFINES) the term way back in 1998. That's worldwide use of the term for more than one decade. Not a neologism, a real term is widespread use. 'Nuff said. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. Although the article is a complete mess, I'll agree that there is a chance that it can be improved. MSN Encarta has a dictionary definition of the term ("U.K. small economical car: a small economical car suitable for driving in a congested city environment" ) and the mentioned NYT article isn't all that bad... I guess it's a start. — Rankiri (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral — the only thing I can account for being part of North-American market is that here both European city cars and superminis are refered to as subcompact cars. Whether you'd like to keep the article as is, or merge it into another one, I guess as long as that referral is kept, I won't mind. Shadiac (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment nominator has no position and afd goes on yet for Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties and Articles for deletion/Habari (3rd nomination) afd is closed when nominator has no positions. i just want to point that hypocracy out. thank you and have nice day. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This may possibly be inconsistency, but I don't see any evidence of hypocrisy. In fact I don't even see it as inconsistency: in both of those cases nobody put forward any serious reason for deletion. This case is quite different. The person trying to nominate it made a mistake, and another editor helped him/her out, and then the original nominator did argue for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Delete. references do not use term as defined here. Misterdiscreet (talk)


 * Comment — If this article were deleted, what would the comparable article about the same topic (i.e., very small automobiles targeted for urban drivers) be named? Does subcompact car cover the topic already or not? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment — I wish it did but I really don't think it does, for two reasons: firstly it's a U.S. English term (Canadian too perhaps) and I expect it'd be unclear (to the point of being meaningless) to U.K. (and Australian, and so on) readers; sure, there could be redirects and carefully worded links from other articles, but it's just a not a word in use. Secondly, it's not actually precise enough to match the smaller segments (perhaps because traditionally the U.S. wasn't so interested in smaller segments?) But there is a difference between superminis and, er, minis. Pretty obviously. Hence the term super-mini – obviously, "bigger/better than an [original] Mini" – and so the smaller-than-a-supermini, a.k.a. city car segment needs to be distinguished from superminis in a way that subcompact doesn't clarify. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 19:12, 3 March 2010 (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.