Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobile model and marque oddities (second 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 Keep. Prodego talk  02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

List of automobile model and marque oddities
The previous AfD has ended with no consensus because many users and the closer focused on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as reasons for deletion, which one can argue can be alleviated by extensive editing, splitting and renaming. However, one important and valid reason for deletion was lost along the way - WP:NOT. Even split and renamed, the contest of this page would still present a collection of unencyclopedic trivia. WP should not and does not (hopefully) contain lists such as List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name.

Please vote delete if you agree with this very argument or vote keep if you can substantiate that this article does not violate this policy. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - the related (nomen omen) List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates was deleted for similar reasons. NOT deleting this article now would be nothing short of a case of WikiSchizophrenia. I also hope some of the editors of those articles managed to create a copy within their user pages, or perhaps will dig one out of the Internet Archives, so that it won't be lost. Those are really fun and it would be a pity of so much work just went up in fumes. They only don't belong in Wikipedia, but perhaps in some less encyclopedic and more relaxed, car- or trivia-oriented Wiki. Bravada, talk - 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, too specific and trivial information to be of interest, listcruft. J I P  | Talk 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are fairly specific grounds for inclusion in the "list".  Perhaps it should be moved to Automobile model and marque oddities, since there is in fact more discussion here than just a "list", and calling anything  a "list" anymore seems to be waving a red flag in front of the bull.  Lists must hide, it seems.  Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - still, how is this information encyclopedic? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the article seems a bit lacking in focus and direction - it's not clear what actually constitutes an 'oddity' - mostly it reads just like some guy rambling on about things that he finds curious or interesting. I doubt that many people would be seeking this information - so it's mostly just a big waste of time for the editor(s).   On the other hand, I'm not a 'deletionist' and I don't think this page is actually doing any harm beyond the $0.01 worth of disk space it consumes.  It's not misleading anyone with false information (as far as I can tell) - so...meh...keep it I guess. (NOTE: In the interests of openness, I should note that I was surprised to discover that I'd actually contributed to the article - but that was only to correct Mini to MINI). 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|20px]] Tentative Keep and relist on Deletion review, too soon after original closure. Morgan Wick 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - ok, and when will it be OK to submit it for normal deletion again? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some cleanup of terms like "interesting" (an opinion that belongs in a magazine column rather than an encyclopedia article) but the basic information is valuable (and interesting). Fg2 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - so perhaps I'll just go and start this List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name. Also, how about List of motor cars whose front track exceeds their height? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - which brings us back to the age-old Deletionism versus Inclusionism debate. I'm an unabashed inclusionist and I don't have a problem with these ultra-obscure lists - even the two ridiculous examples you mention here.  They are pointless - probably nobody will ever read them - but the cost in terms of disk space consumed by all of these ridiculous lists put together is negligable compared to even a single unnecessary 2000x2000 resolution picture of a Pokemon or something.  The only kinds of lists I object to are the ones that are downright misleading or which will turn into untruths if not actively maintained (which they won't be). So I would delete a hypothetical List of the most popular candybars  because in six months tastes will change and the list will be wrong.  But List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name may be incomplete - but so long as it has the template at the top that warns that the list is incomplete - then we aren't misleading anyone.  The red flag for me is lists with superlatives in the title "The most XXX" or "The worst XXX" - those are unmaintainable and must die.  So what is the benefit to keeping these pointless articles?   Well, it prevents flamefests between people who wish to delete them and the people who (often stupidly) created them.  That's a good thing for harmony and peace in the Wikisphere. But this is a deep and ancient debate and we aren't going to resolve it here.  The fate of these articles randomly depends on the ratio of inclusionists to deletionists who happen to sign the AfD. SteveBaker 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm also an inclusionist, and am unhappy that this was again proposed so soon after a no-concensus was reached. Shall we keep voting until folks who want to keep it fail to notice and respond?  --SFoskett 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This was not my intention as nominator. The last nomination was closed with no consensus because the discussion sprawled over too many unrelated issues, and some reasons for deletion mentioned were not applicable or sufficient. Yet one important reason prevails and it has been omitted by most disputants and the closer, so I wanted it to be discussed specifically - as explained in the lead section. Unfortunately, only one of the persons participating in the current discussion related to it in their comments. Bravada, talk - 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I'll take on the "indiscriminate list of trivia" item. That entry lists certain specific things that should not be included.  Among these are Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, and Plot summaries.  This is none of these.  It is an article about odd marques and makes of automobiles, where "odd" specifically means "unusual" (per wiktionary).  These are all unusual.  As for whether it belongs here, I feel it does.  It was created and edited by many people, contains much interesting information, and is no less encyclopedic than most other lists (see List of recent automobile models by type for a particularly ridiculous list).  At least it's somewhat interesting, factual, and fairly complete...  However, I have another suggestion:  Perhaps this should be merged with the marque article, since these seem in general to support that topic.  --SFoskett 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it could be a very good solution! I think the marque article could explain how marques and model names are used and give examples of some peculiarities, so that some of them listed here could be salvaged. Do you think you could do that? Bravada, talk - 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy if one of the contributors wants to take responsibility for moving it off Wikipedia, then delete per WP:NOT. Interesting but not encyclopedic.  Not much of the content should be merged into articles about individual vehicles or manufacturers, and the topic does not belong here at all, but virtually all of it would be good for some automotive reference whose purpose and standards differ from Wikipedia's.  Barno 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "inclusionism vs. deletionism" debate is not helpful in resolving this AfD; people should leave that noise on policy-debate pages and discuss the facts of this topic and how they fit policies. "Let the troublemakers have their way to avoid fights" is neither WP policy nor a way to produce a better encyclopedia; this instead reduces WP's credibility.  Barno 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article is valid to be on Wikipedia. For God's sake look at it, so much work has gone into it. It is wholly verifiable and sourceable. If there are issues with part of it, change it, don't delete it.
 * Split into multiple articles. --Gray Porpoise 19:53, 11 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.