Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Benz SA codes


 * 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. henrik • talk  21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz SA codes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Corvus cornix talk  23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of workshops around the world who would like to reference option codes for repairs, SCN coding, software flashing / enabling and do not have an independent source of information as to the valid cross match.

This information is not compiled in any one place and warrants being referenced as a general tool for people who need to know this information. Miroj (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) — Miroj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What part of Wikipedia is not a directory does not apply here?  Corvus cornix  talk  00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The part where it matched existing atricles in a higher-order of technical applications. SA codes are extremely important to people in the industry working with problems related to cars. This information is not easily obtainable and usually it is obtained at some cost.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroj (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I shudder at the thought that people in the industry use Wikipedia to look up distributor codes.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where would you like them to look it up ? A russian website that is 5 years out of date. As they generally do. Non-franchise members of the industry do not have any support at all. Yet the information is a tabulation - a cross-match of wiki articles. And yes, people do come here to look up Distronic Parktronic


 * Not all information valued by internet users and mechanics is compiled well or easily found or current. Not all information is generic and simple. Some information is about the technology of modern systems. Given the shear volume of it then I can only tabulate it as it goes into the thousands of pages if explained individually.


 * Let me give you a scenario. I want to order a part.  I'm told I can find that part on this list on Wikipedia.  I look up the part and see the code listed here for, say, Cruise control, so I contact a Mercedes distributor and give them the part listed here.  But the article has been vandalized, and so when I give the distributor the part number that I've asked for, it's really for another thing altogether, and the distributor charges me thousands of dollars more for a part I didn't want.   Corvus cornix  talk  00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah ok, but the system does not operate in that modality. Parktronic has about 43 parts. Each one is at least 10 digits but it generally belongs to the [220] family. Parts are not orderable with this information. It is a decoder for the build stamp on cars. Such as "what does my car have" as per its cryptic sticker - and yes even if it were vandalised there would be no reason to say that Wikipedia was liable. This raises other social issues and wiki-trust - which I don't want to ponder. You can not go to a dealer and order a [219] - he would look at you and wonder if you knew anything at all. Certainly they have a legal obligation to validate your concerns with a 10 or 14 digit number. These are "family" codes.  Miroj (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete Almost definitively non-encyclopedic. MadScot (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How then would you know what Distronic on a Mercedes is called if you didnt know it was SA=219. Not everyone is interested in what happened to Bo and Hope. Some people would like technical information. Miroj (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll have to find some other place for this material, it doesn't belong here.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know this place or are you being a tabloid purist. Miroj (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what a tabloid purist is, but I suggest you learn how to be more civil in discussions.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When someone tells me to get lost I like to ask for directions. I have a clear idea of what is popular and what is famous. At the end of the day Wikipedia need not serve the needs of the LCD. There are people who value information for their own useful purposes. This is far from entertaining but it is also far from useless. Miroj (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that in the official Mercedes Benz system there are also blank entries and information omitted. There is no single source which is pure and free from error. The EPCnet system is now free in the USA and EU. People should bear in mind that using a large and complex system is aided by the inclusion of ecclectic resources elsewhere. Miroj (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds if not thousands of proprietary part numbering systems around the world, from things like NATO-STANAG through ATA codes for the airline industry and down to specific part numbering systems for individuals manufacturers. The detailed list of none of those belong in a general encyclopedia. At most a top level description might be appropriate IF the coding system is sufficiently widely used - such as the ISBN system, or the Dewey decimal system. But in neither case would I expect an explicit listing of the code system; for that I need to consult an appropriate specialist manual. I don't want people trying to order parts to do maintenance on ANYTHING - be it a lawnmower or a Jumbo Jet - from Wikipedia! MadScot (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The option codes are scattered all over the marketing material, price lists, imprinted on the cars and how people interpret them is not defined by excluding that information from Wikipedia. The system is used by millions of people every year. Thus far it has never caused anyone to be nominated for a Darwin Award. Thus it has proven itself inert in the last 100 years. Miroj (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory or how-to guide. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia I thought, represented the sum total of human knowledge. Including those items which bind and collate loose information into a unified format. Thus giving rise to many-to-one and one-to-many mappings. There is nothing unusual about wanting to re-index information under a theme or tighter criteria. This generally saves a lot of time and represents the mindset of users / owners / groups which Wikipedia is intended to represent.

You could just as easily file articles loosely and dilute the capacity to derive a greater number of theme oriented ideas. How much deconstruction do you apply before you end up at Hawking radiation and Quark's.

The building of knowledge is also the building of collective and collated ideas. Otherwise we end up with, for example, 1000 articles on mathematical sub theory and no person can adequately denote which ideas are contradictory, opposing and unified.

Similarly, I was looking at the article for MOST (Automotive) and that was flagged as "nothing" - but it is the global standard for Automotive communication (telematics) for all European cars. The simple fact that someone doesnt know about it "back then" is meaningless. The contra-notion geist is alive and haunting in these journals. Ideas come from non-trivial fields and are being contested on the same level as what Brad Pitt did on his last vacation. I think that needs to be a detached one from the other and categorical value stands within its own niche. As a means of binding together hundreds of Mercedes articles, the option codes are entirely consistent with those existing pages. Miroj (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also contest the directory argument as I have sourced several items via Wikipedia including [content management systems], [internet radio], [SQL server]. There were extensive and highly detailed lists of suppliers, sources, costs and formats. Not to mention brand names and their sites. Please clarify your comment. Miroj (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What on earth makes you think that "hundreds of Mercedes articles" are going to be considered encyclopedic? What's notable about this option code system that means it rises above any other manufacturer's system? And the statement that WP is not a directory is not up for debate - it's codified at WP:NOTDIR on an official policy page, so there's no scope to challenge that. To be a justifiable subject for an encyclopedic article, the Mercedes option code system would have to have some unique feature, such that it was notable within its industry. Simply codifying car options doesn't seem to cross that bar. (And, btw, the MOSt article seems appropriately sized and does not delve into details such as this article does) MadScot (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are already hundreds of articles on Mercedes products in Wikipedia. Precisely how would you know they relate to a Mercedes if perhaps it wasnt obvious, which one and in what context ? Precisely how would you be able to find them all if perhaps you were not aware of the rather obscure naming conventions. Cross-listing for items within wikipedia is not unreasonable. I happen to know that BMW, Audi and VW followers have us much interest if not more in these topics but that information is not as easily available to them as there is an exclusion by the manufacturer from the method. For example, if you owned a Porsche ... you are more or less bound by their terms and conditions. That this information is available via Mercedes is a credit to them. I draw your attention to the fact that it is an enviable situation for Mercedes owners and those in the industry.

It is nothing more than a cross-listing of existing car related material in a more defined code system. If you want me to fragment all the codes into individual pages (as some dont exist) then sooner or later someone will want to index them all over again. It is just a convoluted self-referencing objection. Miroj (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete (G11) — This is part of a spamming attempt by the article's creator as the user admits here. User also exhibits further troublesome activity here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 07:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Troublesome ? I really question your opinion as being anything other than provocative. Clearly I made a single line entry on the wrong page. A chat comment was placed in the wiki. You honestly take exception at your sigbot failing the Turing Test. Miroj (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete. not only unencylopedic, but the "information" is not sourced, so any user would have to do their own fact checking, making the page useless. This would need sources for verifiability AND to show that such a list is notable. The lengthy replies here take time that would be better spent finding reliable sourcesYobmod (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The information is so common that it makes a communal soup bowl seem special. Please revert to a tried and tested method. Google MERCEDES RETROFIT. Why would something so obscure have hundreds of thousands of entries if people were not doing it. Then if you look at who is doing the work you may arrive at the same conclusion I have. Perhaps if the concepts being discussed were not at all part of Wikipedia then I would have to agree. The technology and the person function together. Outcomes = results. Hardly as important as "America's Next Top Model" but alas its all true. Miroj (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a child I had several reference libraries. I only ever wore out the ones that were readable as opposed to being popularly regarded as superior. Miroj (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Miroj (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as only useful in the context of a how-to guide, and therefore per WP:NOT. gnfnrf (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and appears not to be notable or have any secondary references. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have decided to take the database of information some other place. There is no need to clutter Wikipedia with common facts. It is more important that the L.C.D. is preserved. Miroj (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and other delete comments Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As per other delete comments. Interesting. Miroj (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt, editor seems to have a lot of ownership issues. Not verifiable, not a directory, not a mechanical repair resource. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ownership was used incorrectly in this page. There is no ownership. But there are a heck of a lot of people around here with a lot of time on their hands. Miroj (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments on this discussion are very enlightening. You have pretty much used half of the known logical fallacies in your responses, but have yet to respond to the reason people are saying this doesn't belong here. Please try again without resorting to childish insults as to why the article should remain when it clearly does not meet WP policies, which, since this is WP, is a bit more important than your personal attestation to the vitality of this information. Try WikiBooks.Try your own wiki. Hell, try Knol! But it doesn't belong here no matter how much you attack people simply telling you the way it is. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it doesnt belong here, I said that several days ago. I thought it interesting to talk on the topic but now I am just fascinated by the manner in which people deliver their comments. There are many things about Wikipedia which are illogical. Building a popular vote doesn't change that. Such as "attack" - I dont recall that an attack took place. I am quite aware that MuZemike comitted a fraudulent misrepresentation. Are you citing that as an attack ?  Do you mind if I take some of your page code from your page ? It looks nice !  Miroj (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet our standards. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:20, 2 October 2008 (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.