Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazda B platform


 * 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 merge to List of Mazda platforms. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mazda B platform

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Unsourced articles, purely original research by simply putting together vehicles with the same first letter model code. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep seems pretty obvious that Mazda model's (and the related Ford cars) starting with 'B' are generations of the Mazda 3. See WP:SKYISBLUE.  Stepho  talk 11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:SKYISBLUE cannot be applied here because what I'm questioning here is, does "Mazda B platform" even exist at all? Say I go ahead and create an uncited article called "Toyota E platform", and wrote all Corolla generations there. Why not, because we don't need to cite that the sky is blue right? I shouldn't, because "Toyota E platform" isn't a platform at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra Febrian (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Nope, it is not "pretty obvious" that such platforms even exist, when there is no trace nor mention of them on a credible website, news source, or database, which can verify or support their existence, in terms of the given manufacturer. WP:SKYISBLUE is not an excuse, which allows for a WP:HOAX of an article to be retained and potentially keep misleading thousands, if not millions of readers who mistakenly take it as credible fact. If we all took that logic on everything, I could easily make up new articles every day on random automotive topics for kicks.
 * User:Sfoskett created these articles out of thin air over 15 years ago, as they did to the now rightfully deleted Ford P Platform and Ford U Platform articles, which I similarly nominated for deletion on the same grounds and succeeded in removing. I see no reason to keep an article drawn up on a whim with NO independent sources with ANY citations (and tagged as such the past nearly 12 years), as any reason to suggest the opposite is rather transparent and flies in the face of verifiability on Wikipedia. This isn't like saying 2+2 = 4 or H2O = oxygen, so WP:SKYISBLUE is irrelevant.
 * I thank Andra Febrian for bringing this to attention, as I couldn't make heads or tails of why and how they existed, when (i.e.) the so called Mazda G Platform has never shown up in a Ford-Mazda database/chart in the last 35 years and those midsize platforms were replaced every 2 generations anyway. I recall an issue, where the first D to F segment front-wheel drive Ford platform was inaccurately named D186 for all generations from 1985 through 2006, for no credible reason and relied on as a source for many years by many outside readers, again with 0 citations supporting it. In reality, it was truly broken down into 3 different architectures named DN5 (1985), DN101 (1995), and D186 (revamped DN101 launched 1999). I suggest this Ford article too. Fictional nonsense like this has got to stop, as the end result is a global misunderstanding of a corporate entity and their products by their buyers, enthusiasts, journalists, or any other interested 3rd parties. The fact many of us have our own good-faith contributions heavily scrutinized and dissected, even with less than perfect citations, yet this has remained here so long and never challenged for accuracy/verifiability, borders highly questionable and more.
 * I thus strongly support deletion of all these articles, as they're misleading drivel, promoting another false (personal) narrative and becoming fodder for lazy journalists to regurgitate and ignorantly report as "fact". Wikipedia has never been a place to create full page articles out of your own personal thoughts. It's a digital encyclopedia, not a journal or diary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs)
 * I did a bit of hunting. While it's not exactly common in user groups, the spare parts suppliers seem to like calling it the B platform. Also, I found a 2014 manual at https://mega.nz/file/mdR1VAjJ#TmDZY8Mbh4BPzyYdlYMAYB7IRjFNGar7Kf9AXdx2FmU and on page 289 it decodes the VIN to show that 'BM' means Mazda3. Not authoritative on its own but it does hit that it's probably right.  Stepho  talk 13:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dispute the model codes though, it seems like it's all true despite unsourced. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename - it appears that the actual content of the articles (i.e. the two-letter coding) is accurate, but there isn't any such thing per se as a "B platform" (et al) to encompass all of the ones in a particular series. The "Nx" codes for the MX-5/Miata, in particular, are in wide use; eliminating the information altogether would be unproductive. Renaming the articles to remove the implication of a single "N" platform would be the better course of action. --Sable232 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion, it should only be done by merging everything and make it a "List of Mazda model codes". Andra Febrian (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a merged article.  Stepho  talk 23:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also support a merge - List of Mazda platforms would be a good target, maybe with the content in table format instead of simply a plain list. --Sable232 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep but fix Perhaps the answer is to combine these into a single article or a list or something. Vehicle platforms are often things car people want to know about so I would argue the content is inherently what we want to cover but we are lacking good sourcing at this time.  Combining into a single list article might be a good way to help fix this mess vs just erase it.  Springee (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and add sources. If there are none available, I'll probably have second thoughts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of Mazda platforms per the reasoning above. This seems like the most obvious merge target since it already exists.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of Mazda platforms- insufficient sources to warrant separate articles for each platform. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of Mazda platforms since, quite evidently, none of them is worthy of a stand-alone article. Unless, of course, we have the intention of participating in the promotion campaigns of this particular car brand. -The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2021 (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.