Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical comparison of economy cars 2006


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical comparison of economy cars 2006
Prodded by R3m0t, deprodded, so brought to AfD. This looks more like something from Consumer Reports than an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep without setting precedent that all such comparisons will be kept - I think comparisons can be encyclopedic. I do think we need some sort of standard for what comparisons are notable enough to be included.  I'm tempted to list some that we should not have, but that would violate WP:BEANS. Johntex\talk 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that this will become a de facto precedent if it is kept. Calton's examples below will be reality within a few months, and as soon as someone AfD's them the author(s) will cry fould and cite Historical comparison of economy cars 2006.  Personally I don't know how you can keep this comparison without opening the door to all comparisons.  What possible reason could someone put forth to keep Historical comparison of economy cars 2006 as important and encyclopedic and not extend it to Historical comparison of gaming consoles 2006, Historical comparison of Plasma Televisions 2004, or any of Calton's examples below.  Comparison pages are an all or none proposition: either they are encyclopedic or they are not.
 * Furthermore, what is the long term usefulness of this information? In 2010, who is going to care how 3 arbitrarily selected vehicles stacked up?  Why just these 3 vehicles?  Where is the 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid?  I imagine there are at least a few other cars that meet this criteria. Beyond that, where did this definition of "economy car" come from? What is to stop me from arbitrarily deciding that "economy cars" only need to get 30 mpg and add another 20 vehicles to the list... or decide that hybrids are not included and remove the 3 cars currently listed?  This concept is just not in any way maintainable.--Isotope23 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. This isn't Consumer Reports.--Isotope23 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, helps users to understand the variety of economy cars in existence circa 2006. Kappa 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As would Historical comparison of washing machines 1997, Historical comparison of CD players 2004, Historical comparison of luxury wrist watches 2007, etc for their respective subjects. And the actual point of such information would be what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, information that may be valuable to interested users. I would like to see some kind of standard for the inclusion of this kind of material in the future, though. Kuzaar 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean US-specific, arbitarily defined, time-limited data? That's not the standard I'd care to see. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On consideration, you're probably right, there's no real way to make a standard for this subject without including arbitrarily large amounts of information, which Wikipedia is not. On consideration, delete unless there's an appropriate place found for this information. Kuzaar 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. Oh man, what's right with this? US-centric, completely subjective criteria for inclusion, only three cars on the list, arbitrary subject matter, etc. Let Consumer Reports do this. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm the original author. It helps people research what alternatives people had with concern to global warming and smog.  Initial cars chosen are best in class.  For example Honda Fit was rated best by "Car and Driver".  I'm expecting more cars will be added.  All cars chosen are sold on a global basis.  Daniel.Cardenas 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete just can't see how this would become a complete list, which is certainly what it should aspire to. No need to invite readers to use WP to make their own original comparisons, ala the consumer reports case made above. Great idea, wrong place. Comment from author "Initial cars chosen are best in class" shows subjective nature of lists of this type. Deizio 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an absolutely ridiculous reason to vote keep. If you are going to vote keep at least do it on the merits of the article.  Base it on whether or not articles based on arbitrary comparisions are encyclopedic or not.--Isotope23 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, a comment like this is tantamount to a personal attack on the nominator. Kuzaar 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This cannot be speedy kept, as there are already other votes to delete. Please assume good faith. I agree with Kuzaar and Isotope23. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - very subjective criteria and arbitrary selection of cars for comparison Barneyboo (Talk) 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Criteria constitute original research, US-centric, bad precendent, unencyclopedic. Yuck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's just a duplicate of Comparison of economical cars, created after I put it up for deletion on the same grounds. &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E; 06:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (and yes, I realize that Comparison of economical cars was edited to be just a redirect to this article.)
 * Delete per deletion reasonings above. DVD+ R/W 06:20, 26 April 2006 (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.