Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobile model and marque oddities


 * 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 no consensus. Before you start to sharpen your knives, I will explain: the only valid deletion reason I see here in WP:NOR and on that there is no consensus. I find that the information is mostly verifiable if not now verified. As such, the lists are not beyond salvage, and any POV could be cured with effort. Overall, I find that WP is better off having this than having nothing at all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of automobile model and marque oddities
This is actually several different lists masquerading as one, bundled under a POV title: there's actually really nothing "odd" about most of the vehicles listed here, nor is there anything really odd about the section concepts, like the fact that some cars are not produced for the open retail market. Crabapplecove 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are interesting facts in that article.Avala 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is all well and good, but not a reason to keep this specific collection of "interesting facts" by itself. I freely admit to knowing almost precisely nothing about cars, but would it be worthwhile to move the interesting facts to articles on the relevant cars or their manufacturers? BigHaz 13:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found this collection of information quite interesting. There is certainly no specific reason to delete it, and I fail to understand the complaint about these lists being bundled together - they would be very stubby if they were all separated, and probably deleted for that very reason. Bob 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is a specific reason to delete; it breaches WP policy. This is policy and not a guideline. It is a fundamental principle on which this encyclopeadia is being built. On AfD we are expected to uphold WP policies or there is no point in having them. BlueValour 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the title cries out it is WP:POV. If interesting enough it should be mentioned in the individual articles or merged to Marque and a category used. Yomangani 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete what's an "oddity" is very much in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bob. The guy who did that obviously made a lot of research and it is quite interesting to read. Hektor 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep although I was "the guy who did that" originally, I by no means am responsible for the majority of the list as it stands, indicating a fair amount of support and interest from other editors. I see no reason to delete it, and the information is ancillary to, and supportive of, the article for marque and others.  Perhaps the title is POV and could be changed, I had not thought of that.  --SFoskett 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if it is kept any editor may delete most of the content anyway as OR. BlueValour 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A clear case of what WP is not. To address the comments above about it being interesting (and directed to many other AfD as well) there is a major difference between what is interesting and what is important.  Important belongs in an encyclopedia; interesting does not.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is four-square, down the middle OR. It is a clear violation of WP policy. Period. BlueValour 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - or perhaps temporarily move to somebody's user space and later to a less "serious" site. There are numerous legitimate reasons why the "list" should not exist by WP standards, but as it might be interesting to some readers, it could be published somewhere else. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete – slightly reluctantly, because it's well-intentioned and interesting in a quirky way, and I'd hope to see it on another website somewhere. But it includes lots of wooly statements and opinion, not suitable here. – Kieran T  ( talk  17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. There is some good information, but it can be said by the title that the article is too POV for Wikipedia. --Gray Porpoise 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV title for starters which is usually indicative of inherent POV within the article (although in this case it doesn't seem too bad); there seems to be no flow or structure to the various sections, and despite the number of factoids in the article, I can see only one cited reference. It does seem to violate the WP:NOT policy pertaining to "an indiscriminate collection of information". --DeLarge 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of dubious entries to be sure, but fixable. Fix, don't delete, that's what I always say. No bullies/gangs. --matador300 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. BlueValour 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yomangani. This information can't be verified or mantained. Gwernol 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, it can. The multi-marque models, unrelated models and identical models in the same market can be verified by the various yearly Automobil Revue Katalogs (published by Swiss publication Automobil Revue and distributed at the Geneva Auto Show, as well as through the Auto Motor und Sport annuals, Global Auto Index and Histomobile. The racing homologation specials require more digging to find the articles published in various automotive publications throughout Europe and the information therein regarding limited production models and the entry of those models in international motorsport competitions, as well as older FIA yearbooks where regulations mention the minimum number of cars required for granting them homologation. --Pc13 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree, the information is 100% verifiable, though there are always some doubts as to the completeness of the lists. The valid reason for deletion is WP:NOT. Bravada, talk - 07:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the info can be salvaged in the respective articles. The homologation specials list can be moved to Homologation. I've moved the homologation list to my personal page's subpage. --Pc13 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Pretty much per Yomangani, it is not Wikipedia's decision to decide what is odd and what isn't. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:55, 6 August 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.