Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial failures in the automotive industry


 * 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 Speedily Deleted by Zsinj under G4, see Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Vary | Talk 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

 * — (View AfD)

This article, like its predecessor List of automobiles that were commercial failures, suffers from dealing with a completely undefined concept. There are no definitions of what constitutes a failure and the article will inherently be prone to speculation and POV conflicts. Unfortunately there is no way to deal with this concept in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. For the deletion of the preceeding article see Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures-The rational for deleting this article is the same as that of its predecessor.  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * deleteThis is largely identical to the prior list and suffers from the same problem, mainly that it is inherently NOT-NPOV, which means that the list can NEVER be NPOV, and so it must go. This isn't merely a clean-up issue, it is subjective as to what can be considered a "failure" and thus, will never be neutral.  The article is also nearly entirely unreferenced, and thus fails WP:V.  --Jayron 32  06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vague listcruft. --Brianyoumans 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Arbitary listcruft. MER-C 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The issue with this sort of article is that it can (and seems to have) turn into a spree of original research and weasel words.  There are articles like it that that have been kept (eg. Films considered the worst ever), but they restrict themselves to only those cases that have reliable sources.  If reliable sources can be found for a few cases, and if the article is scaled back to only those cases (and entries added only as reliable sources are found), then weak keep.  --Interiot 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point-I agree. As is, the article, does however, face severe OR and POV issues.  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt; it qualifies under CSD G4 ("Recreation of deleted material").  Fails to even mention how they were commercial failures (i.e. how much money they lost), never mind provide sources, which would be practically impossible since such info is not made public by manufacturers. --DeLarge 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call, I didn't notice that. It has a few changes from the original version, but it is substantially a repost of the version discussed in the AfD.  It has one extra source,  for what it's worth, but it looks like a G4 to me.  Tagging it with db.  --Interiot 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a repost of previously AFDed content. It can go through deletion review once proper sources have been established per Interiot. -Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Qualifies under CSD G4, as a re-posting of deleted material, albeit under a new title. The previous AFD (Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures) was deleted as a result. There are also POV problems, and it's ostensibly original research. If someone has reliable sources for this, then take it to deletion review, but due to lack of references, and the fact it's a re-posting of deleted material, it has to go. --SunStar Nettalk 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Waste of time. Who is to say what is a commercial failure and what isn't?  ren0  talk 17:08, 6 December 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.