Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of successful automobiles
The shameful course the previous discussion took notwithstanding, I would like to renominate this article as I believe it is inherently and incurably not belonging to an encyclopedia and Wikipedia in particular. Please see the reasoning below: The bottom line is - even if this list can be rectified by turning it into a proper WP list, it would require actually starting it over. Therefore I suggest users defending this list for the reason that it can be rectified (and I actually see no other reason for defending it from deletion) could start the new, rectified list now and let the deletion process do the other part. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) As was noted before, "successful" cannot be objectively defined, therefore this article in its present form will always be an expression of the authors' POV. Even citing sources, which some seem to believe fixes the problem, will not help, as any source claiming an automobile to be successful is POV (just like any piece of text proclaiming some woman a "great actress" etc.)
 * 2) This could theoretically be fixed by renaming the article, but given its present form (see header - "A list of automobile models that have achieved a cult-like following.") it would also bring about the need for actually completely rewriting it, and I mean starting from scratch - therefore, it would be equivalent to deleting and starting a new article. By deleting, we ensure this will happen.
 * 3) Please note that this article is called a list. There are specific rules governing lists in WP, described by Lists (stand-alone lists). The current form of the article does not conform with the adopted standard for such lists. An example of a featured list quite similar to the proposed "List of automobiles / automobile nameplates produced for over 20 years" can be found here. See how different it is from the present state of the article.
 * 4) As a sidenote, I would like to remark that creating "Guinness Book of Records"-style lists does not really help the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia, but rather is often a thinly veiled attempt to promote a given group of items, especially if the criterium chosen makes them seem superior than some other of a given kind. As such, they are prone to generate edit wars and conflicts, as seen before in this very example.
 * 5) The notion that an automobile model or a nameplate has been selling exceptionally well or running exceptionally long belongs first and foremost in the article, there is little need to repeat that in another article. Also, a well-defined category can be much easier to maintain than a list.


 * 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: Your unnecessarily strident language ("I want it gone", etc.) is not helping your case or winning you allies. Please tone it down now. Scheinwerfermann 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact that it doesn't conform to the standard is irrelevant; what matters is whether the title & topic combination in any form would belong. And I reckon it doesn't.  The Literate Engineer 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete As I stated in the last nomination for deletion. This article is impossible to judge. Any car that has sold enough to make back money for Research and Development can be considered a success. Defining what is a success and what is not is always going to be biased.  ren0  talk 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete yea, can't be done per above. AdamBiswanger1 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This article was never needed or relevant, and lately all it has become is a spot for wairthu to push his POV. After geting into tons of arguments with Wairthu over this article, I want it gone. Karrmann 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete As inherently POV Marcus22 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no article on Successful automobiles. It's always questionable when there's a "list of X" but no article on X itself. If "successful automobiles" were a legitimate encyclopedic topic, there would be an article on it, and this list should have begun as a section within that article. In fact, I don't think you could write an article on successful automobiles that could be anything but a personal essay and original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective, and the list could conceivably continue ad infinitum (ad nauseum?).  WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The definition of 'success' is too vague. What should readers of this article learn from it?  If this was a 'List of marques that sold more than 1,000,000 cars' or 'Car designs that made more than $10M profit' - then maybe (but still probably not).  But can a car that made a loss for it's manufacturer be a 'success'?  Yes - the Mini for example.  Can a car who's production run was cut short be a 'success'? Arguably - the DeLorian - it's a cultural icon - it's fantastically collectible.  If we don't have a definition for 'success', the criteria for inclusion or exclusion must be inherently POV - and this ends up just being a place for people to argue endlessly about the cars they love (or hate). SteveBaker 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no definition of success. WP should cover vague concepts but this is just too vague. The netire article is too OR, POV with a completely subjective subject matter. An article on the world's most sold vehicles might be appropriate but success is an undefined term and this article could hurt the credibility of WP.  Signature brendel  16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Extremely POV with original non verifiable research. dposse 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:V. Themindset 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - What use is this? It isn't encyclopaedic, nobody will search for it. Extreme POV Mdcollins1984 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Research may not be verifiable. Also, if the list was completed, it would be long! -- Big  top  17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia still is not MotorWeek. Gazpacho 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saying "successful" instead of giving set standards is POV. --Gray Porpoise 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 'nuff said. --Cassavau 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Article may be better named "List of automobiles successful in the US". Very biased but in any case rather pointless. Mallanox 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Dpbsmith. Criteria ill defined. List too general and subjective to serve any purpose.
 * Delete per Wikipedia not being MotorWeek, and per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:39, 4 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.