Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. That does not preclude any other editor from nominating this article again - but after a reasonable period, please. Kimchi.sg 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

List of successful automobiles
Thanks to Wairthu adding his blatant POV and his like "This car is favored by little asian women everywhere" this article has become an atrocity to Wikipedia, and even another editer called it the worst article he had ever seen. I want this atrocity gone from wikipedia, Karrmann 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "successful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's pet makes and models—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. An article specifically and narrowly listing longest-running vehicle models or longest-running vehicle model names might be debatably less inappropriate. Either is arguably just as trivial and unworthy of Wikispace as the present article. NOTE TO KARMANN: I agree with you that racial slurs have no place in Wikipedia (except perhaps as illustrative examples in an article about racism), but your unnecessarily strident language is not helping your case or winning you allies. --Scheinwerfermann 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not necessairly agree with the language used by Karrmann, but the article certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia due to its inherent POV. Bravada, talk - 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, although not for the reasons given - a badly written article only desrves to be edited, not wiped out. The fundamental, unsurmountable problem with the article is that the only way to measure success without violating WP:NPOV is to measure sales, and the List of bestselling vehicle nameplates already exists (although it needs tidied as well). Any other measure of success would be a subjective review, not an encyclopedia article, and that's what this is.


 * Comment #1 ~ I think the List of automobiles that were commercial failures (aka List of automotive flops) also deserves an AfD. It at least tries to measure failure by the only objective method, but fails to cite a single source or even, in many cases, mention numbers. And while we're at it, the equally subjective Category:Cult Cars deserves to be deleted for the same reasons. Wiarthurhu routinely exhibits a lack of NPOV in his writing, but so do you, Karrmann.


 * Comment #2 ~ Has this article been nominated correctly? It isn't showing up on Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 2, and your name doesn't appear in the page's edit history. This nomination might just fail on procedural grounds. -- DeLarge 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment #3 ~ The above couldn't be more true and accurate :D I was actually about to raise the issue of the "Cult cars" category (not to mention my failed attempt to delete the "list of flops", which set a dangerous precedent for that all). Bravada, talk - 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, What constitutes a vehicle as a successful vehicle? It just plain doesn't make sense. Technically any car that sells enough to make the money back for R&D can be considered a success. I say this list is a waste of time.  ren0  talk 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment #1 ~ Does nobody see what else I see? This list would be impossible to maintain as any car that sells at least enough to cover Research and development can be considered a successful car. I can understand the list of failures (note; Ford Pinto.) But this list would be entirely too hard to maintain and judging what cars are successful from what aren't would be damn near impossible. Hell, i'm sure some of the cars not on this list are considered successful (hence the reason they are still around) by their manufacturer. This list is a waste of time, whether there is Point of View or not.  ren0  talk 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inherent POV, very poorly written, and an odd basis for an article. TomTheHand 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Extremely POV, original non-verifiable research. dposse 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As creator of this article, this is meant to measure success by longevity of the nameplate or niche, so this makes possible including long lived cars which might have a lower sales volume, such as the Nash/AMC ambassador. Also rather than just being a list, it has a short commentary on how a car might have earned, or paradoxically gotten such a status despite apparent defects. Most of the articles are sourced to citations that also say the automobile in question was notably a sales success. I continue to be apalled by the exclusionary and negative attitude of so many WP editors who have identified themselves above, and practiced the tactics I have highlighted on my user page as being distressing, especially deleting articles entirely. Deleting articles is usually because the article causes some sort of harm against an individual or party, that is certainly not the case here, and most of the entries are sourced. I am especially surprised by Karmann who contributed an especially low-quality article on the Taurus, which I upgraded in terms of facts and reduced POV, but was reverted. Karmann has since contributed only complaint tags, and now this undeserved AFD. I would encourage all involved to participate in refining the writing and adding other cars, not kicking it down. --matador300 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is filled to the brim with POV and has absolutely no sources. --ApolloBoy 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons given above, except those in the nomination. Wikipedia is not MotorWeek. Gazpacho 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I've offered to work with Wiarthurhu to see if we can get the article on better footing. I'm going to rewrite to remove POV but finding sources will be the key. Agne 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not voting on this AfD, but I did remove what I deemed to be personal attacks, as well as the excessive (and not customary) list of Wikipedia polices that were placed above this AfD. I feel the AfD as it is edited now (with the attacks edited out and the WP policies removed) should stand, with only new votes and discussion, not jockeying for position or debate between the nominator and the editor whose edits are in question. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason why I nominated this article is because of wairthu's POV. If it can be evened out, and Wairthu can stop from adding blatant POV to that article, then I will withdraw this AfD. Karrmann 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * AfD is not for cleanup, nor to prove a point. I suggest you withdraw this nomination now, and allow for cleanup. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can clean up the article, and prove that Wairthu can keep from re adding his POV, then I will withdraw this nomination. I will prevent this article from being deleted until you are done cleaning it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrmann (talk • contribs)


 * First of all, sign your comments, please. Second of all, do not charge me with the mission of cleaning this article. If you have issues with it, edit it yourself. Third, how do you think you will "prevent this article from being deleted"? I think you fail to grasp basic Wikipedia procedure, and I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies on deletion and creating AfDs before you nominate an article again. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was in my battle with Wairthu, he was all like "withdraw this AfD or I will put you on my black list", and kepts hassling me over withdrawing this. If I withdraw tis AfD, I am afraid that I will not hear the end of it from Wairthu. Karrmann 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for battles. Withdraw this nom, go to mediation, and don't disrupt Wikipedia. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How do I withdraw this?


 * Comment I do not have any interest in the "debate" between the nominator and the article creator. I agree that Mediation is probably the best route. I went through and did some POV rewrite. It's far from perfect but I'm hitting a road block with sources. Another issue that I'm seeing is with the name. How is a "Successful automobile" being defined? The original intro paragraph didn't lay out the definition in an objective, encyclopedic matter. I do think the article's editors need to better establish this parameter or else the article really has no where else to go. As for the AfD, I'm personally abstaining from voting. It's my opinion that the article still needs a lot of work but I do not know how interest the article editors are in going that path. Agne 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It started out as long-lived nameplate, and got changed. The current defintion is that the nameplate, or similar nameplates must last over 20 years, and be cited elsewhere as being conspicuously successful, preferably outside of WP, though an existing WP article will do. I would suggest changing it back to longest running to distinguish it from the similar, but slightly different list of bestselling cars. Might be a good idea to put a very short limit on summaries, the top selling article does have a few one-line comments. --matador300 01:22, 3 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.