Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Falen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does seem to be notable: talks about a former future product ("will make a full technical specifications list available on its website on September 1, 2008") and there are no mentions of it after 2008. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Agree with nom it is notable: TopGear, MotorTrend, Core77, MotorAuthority, they don't just write about every little supercar project. They only report on the ones they think show some sort of promise. L3X1  (distænt write)  23:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I assume the nom meant "not notable". None of the coverage is of the car, only of the promise of a car.  If we can't verify that the car ever got past the pre-production hype stage, this should be deleted. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: There are a few people with "Falen" as a surname. If this article is deleted, a disambiguation page can be made in its place. bd2412  T 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON, end of story. Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to disambiguation page – This is the only thing I could find arfter a short look. J947 Public (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. After the initial surge of reactions to the initial announcement, there was nothing...buuuuut dipping a few pages into the Google search found this. Which basically says it was literally something that was made up one day. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The referenced article states, "The next thing she said told me the project was unlikely to have legs: “Hang on a wee minute, he’s up in his bedroom at the moment…” " There is no date on the article, but the page source view gives 2017-04-15, with images newly posted in the same month.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * since I don't see it, I am courtesy pinging you as an editor appears to have tampered with your !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Unscintillating, I don't understand your comments about the article - those are exactly the reasons to delete... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Now that notability is sustained into 20 February 2017, there seems to be a contrary attitude that the authors should be held accountable now because the topic should not have been on Wikipedia in 2008, written in present and future tense.  Good pictures are available in Google images using [Falen "Concept 17.1"].  I noted that the detail in the images included reflections from an overhead showroom.  One of the sources says that SolidWorks was used to create the images.  While the article was previously at Falen (Automobile), I support a move of the article to Falen (automobile).  Unscintillating (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good find, finding something from after 2008. However, if you look at the article you linked from February, it talks about (going by Google Translate) rumours from 2008, “Reason that he never came there: Eh, he never existed at all” and “Chance that he is still there: Less than zero”. At least, this link can be used to rewrite the article now, properly in the past tense, as a nonexistent project about which there were rumours in 2008. Whether an article about such a thing would be worth keeping is the question to discuss here. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have updated the article to the present date, using this very useful 2017 mention (thanks!). And as you said, we should vote based on whether an article about a 2008 rumour should exist on Wikipedia now, not on whether it should have existed on Wikipedia in 2008. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your major improvements to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - that's exactly the same article I found, just on the Dutch Top Gear site instead of the English one. The car was never built - it was CGI rendered. It appears there never even was a "Dowdeswell & Hardie" - there are no hits for the company name outside of the 2008 Falen announcement. I have no idea where you get "a contrary attitude that the authors should be held accountable now because the topic should not have been on Wikipedia in 2008" - the topic, based on what was known at the time, should have been on Wikipedia in 2008. However, now that it has been revealed to have only been a hoax, it's neither notable as an automobile or a hoax, and as such does not belong as having a Wikipedia now. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at your word in italics: "exactly". No, it is not exactly the same.  You are making things up, including the speculation that this is a hoax.  If this is or more accurately was a hoax, why did the "design consultancy" have a website and a working phone number?  Nor do you have any evidence that the work on this car by this design consultancy took them one day, especially since one of the sources reports a four-year design time.  Maybe you would have an interest in an essay I wrote regarding accuracy in the encyclopedia, WP:Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is, in fact, the same article, in Dutch, as the one that I found in English. And quoting:

"There was a phone number at the bottom of the press release, so I gave it a bell. The phone rang and rang and was eventually answered by a hesitant middle-aged lady with a tentative “Hello?”. Clearly not a receptionist at a design agency. Anyway, I forged ahead, asking if I had the right number for Dowdeswell & Hardie. I did. And could I speak to someone about the Falen project? I could. The next thing she said told me the project was unlikely to have legs: “Hang on a wee minute, he’s up in his bedroom at the moment…”"


 * ...the phone number was someone's personal, home phone number, it was answered by someone's mother, and the person in question was her son up in his bedroom. Q.E.D., it's something a kid, or kids, made up one day and pulled the wool over peoples' eyes with for a lark. Why did they have a website and working phone number? You can make a website for all but free (even back then), and it was their home phone. And regardless of all of this, that article does not "sutain notability into February 2017". It was one retrospective that confirmed the vehicle in question never existed, and, in fact, was never going to exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page. Our revised article mentions the Loch Ness monster, which your British article doesn't mention.  You've had days now to check your facts, yet you still insist that the Dutch and the British articles are the same.  Your "hoax" scenario is that a "kid" is upstairs in a bedroom in 2017, which, given a max age of 17, this means that in 2008 the "kid" was 8 years old.  Surely the "mom" was fully engaged if she was publishing her home phone number for the use of her 8-year old child.  This doesn't seem useful to speculate on the ages of the consultants.  There is nothing unusual about a consultant working in his bedroom, nor do we know that the phone was in a home in 2008.  Whether young or old, the design is not a hoax, because readers can verify for themselves a detailed design on Google images, credited by many sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment no car was ever produced, and there doesn't appear to have ever been a bona fide attempt to produce a car. Whether it meets WP:HOAX or not isn't clear, but the effect is the same. Delete. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Until there is evidence of a hoax that is more than BLP violations, the hoax issue is clear. The essay you've linked to is WP:Do not create hoaxes.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this part: Like everything else, hoaxes must be notable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. I don't think the coverage of this has risen to the level that it is notable as a hoax. If you're claiming this is a bona fide effort to produce a car, I want references. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sources indicate that there were ever any serious designs or intentions to develop a car. I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense. As a hoax, which this has been confirmed to be, it has not been covered significantly or at least believed by a large group of people; hence it is not encyclopedic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2017 (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.