Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford P platform (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 delete. Salvio 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ford P platform
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am posting this nomination for, who states (rather convincingly) that this model platform does not appear to exist (and the article has has comments on the talk page complaining about it being inaccurate since 2004). While the trucks mentioned exist, the sources cited do not name this the "P platform". Something like a major carmaker's model platforms should be covered far better in reliable sources, so delete looks like the best option here. —Kusma (t·c) 22:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the previous discussion was speedily closed as lacking content, so this is the first time this article is properly debated at AfD. Carmaker1 nominated this for speedy deletion, but and myself declined the speedy. —Kusma (t·c) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)  yes, thank you so much Kusma for your help. I have only done this once, but never through an AfD. We definitely need to delete this article because it's not accurate, but I am undergoing the deep research of unearthing a connection between past body-on-frame Fords. Even as a minor COI, it is only my interest that this site has the most accurate information so that the greater public is not misled. Not to advertise for Ford. Even with professional access to deeper information, I am finding difficulty doing so from home vs at work and some databases are not expanding beyond Ford T1 introduced in 2006 on U324 and U354. Something tells me that I am missing something and I need to look harder, but in the meantime there is no way that there was a P Platform manufactured by Ford. I cannot find any research that supports this independent of Wikipedia based information. The only sources I find are clearly borrowed from that very article (and postdate it), by obviously lazy journalists not going to a credible outside source and turning Wikipedia into an original research project by them relying on content here.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just in, here it is . Although the U222 Expedition was introduced in May 2002 wearing the styling of the upcoming P221 F150, (originally due in December 2002) it still reused components from the UN-93 Expedition (October 1996) based on PN-96 F-Series launched in January 1996 and adding Independent Rear Suspension. It moved to T1 in 2006, however an earlier version of T1 was already on the 2004 F-150 in September 2003. As I did mention though before, T1 came into existence for both with time. Edit: Bingo, a full list of our past platforms among many others, from 2008 (some estimates changed post-2008). Ranger built from 1992 to 2011 I knew was on Yuma, but U251 Explorer and Sport Trac were T4. P221 F-150 was its own special platform, not shared with anything else from 2003 to 2008, except P225 F150 SuperCrew. P131 was the basis for Super Duty from 1998 to 2016 under codes PHN131 (1998-2006), P356 (2006-2010), and P473 (2010-2016).--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep (with reservation) For the most part, the article (or is it really a list?) has seen little substantial changes since its creation 16 years ago.  As the article creator has not been active since 2011, we will likely not know the logic behind how this was created.  While there may not be a distinct Ford "P" platform architecture, this has become a model code linking multiple generations of the Ford F-Series/Super Duty trucks (Carmaker1 says it in the above response...).  Rather than being deleted outright, things would be better if it was updated with proper information.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying. I am not interested in cars, so I am probably lacking the proper background here. What I get from the most recent versions of the article is that Ford has some codes starting with "P", but not a platform architecture. You say this is an important concept, so shouldn't the article just be renamed "Ford codes starting with P" or something similar? Is that really a notable concept? —Kusma (t·c) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly it's not a platform at all. An article for T1 or T3 would be accurate, but this article for P platform or P designation is pointless and should be deleted, as neither is an actual platform for automobiles nor relevant in that sense, as creating a C or D article for Ford would be unnecessary just the same. The application only makes sense in regards to specific & fully related vehicle architectures (C1, C2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and not simply a letter prefix).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to the searches I have engaged, there is only one relevant reference to this; I can't find any more that reference the two variants on this page. Not notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge content While the consensus has come to the point where this article may have been created out of misinformation (I don't disagree), I do feel that some of its content can be used on Ford T platform (both the model codes and the source provided by Carmaker1...very useful).  Along with putting the issues related to this article to rest, shifting relevant content could be a big help in improving an article/list in desperate need of attention. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article creator's intentions are neither here nor there; this subject's notability is what's at issue. SIGCOV is just not there, full stop.   Ravenswing      20:46, 26 August 2020 (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.