Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of sport utility vehicles


 * 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 Close with no action. This is mostly a content dispute. There is certainly a case for a separate article - this is clearly an important topic which has received international coverage - but the decision as to whether it should be stand-alone or as part of the main article is not a job for AfD. Black Kite 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of sport utility vehicles

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I feel this article should be dealed because it has a clear bias and plenty of loaded/weasel words. I think that most of the technical infomation on the page should be returned to the usual SUV article. There's no mention of SUV safety at all on the usual SUV article, it's all contained on the criticism article, where it's presented with a bit of bias. I also think that the relevant criticism of SUVs should also go under the usual SUV article, under a section called 'Public perception of SUVs', or something along those lines .... Sawyer1990 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, whilst it's possible the article violates the Neutral Point of View policy, its sources are cited, and verifiable, to a large extent. It does, however, need a slight re-write to avoid bias, I feel. - RD (Talk) 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - Notable media phenomenon, notable over and above straightforward discussion of SUVs. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:FORK. Needs to be a section in main article and then checked for WP:NPOV.  CorpITGuy (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the way to deal with forks that can be merged. - Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; if you think you can make it a section of the main article, please do the merge. No need for AfD for merging. Tizio 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Splice each section— Obvious fork attempt
 * Moreover, it exacerbates the points brought up in WP:CRITICISM by not only putting the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT into its own section, but in this case putting it into a separate forked article. Each sections that should be saved needs to go back into the appropriate section in the main article. And then afterwards, cull the blatant eco-nut comments. This article is huge mess. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and don't redirect This is a bit of a stretch for an article. Even criticism sections are bound to be biased, so creating an article for the purpose should only be done in situations where criticism of the primary topic is not only considered a topic in itself but is substantially more than simply a long lists of issues people have. As not every single detaiil needs listing and explaining in an encylopedia most of this can be condensed and spread among the appropriate places in the primary. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT After a merge of material, a redirect is required to complete the paper trail. The history of the article in its current form needs to be retained per the GFDL. =- Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although falling short in the areas of neutrality, the article provides sufficient well sourced details on area that is under debate on international level. Merging would undermine credibility of the main article, since the listed article is bigger and would transfer importance towards criticism. Instead, a smaller section linking to this article should be created.
 * On a separate note, I'm not sure if this can be considered a valid AfD. The issues put forward by nominator deal neutrality and possible merger. Such issues can be discussed on the article talk page and solved there. LeaveSleaves talk 03:48, 29 October 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.