Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontiac G8


 * 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 Deleted, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is non-negotiable. Please re-create this article if the G8 ever does materialize; until then, there isn't any confirmed information known about it, and thus it doesn't make sense to have an article yet. -- Cyde Weys 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac G8


This page violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Whisp e ring 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) This isn't rocket science. Delete it now, and recreate it when Pontiac actually announces the damn thing. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry dudes, this has got to stay. More info will be added as time goes on and there are plenty of rumors about this vehicle--Nytemunkey 05:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Rumors" are not verifiable, and cannot be included in Wikipedia. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  No verification and 2009 is quite a long ways from now. –-  kungming·  2  | (Talk ·Contact) 00:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but source, for example:   Chicago Tribune?  I'd say that's reliable.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's speculation. Speculation, even speculation by a respectable columnist, is never reliable. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but make it a stub too? Missvain 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or if possible merge to Pontiac. Tarret 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up and merge into main Pontiac article. Encise 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Encise
 * Comment Merging to the Pontiac article would be inappropriate, as it's likely that the further information about this vehicle will require a split-off anyway. Assuming it's found to be true.  If it's found to be false, it should just be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup to make it a bit less "crystal ball"-y, if possible. Mishatx 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not possible. There is not a single reliable fact available about this alleged vehicle.  There is not a single source that demonstrates that it even exists.  There is just speculation.  This is a textbook crystal ball article.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible; I did just so with the intro a short time ago to emphasize that this article is about speculation, not a specific vehicle. Have another look.  We can get on to sourcing the other statements now that the intro is clean.   Un  focused  22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  P.B. Pilh e  t  /  Talk  03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Documented crystal balling of other reliable sources is not the same as Wikipedia editors gazing into same.   Un  focused  05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Expanding my comments, this "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." is from WP:NOT's section regarding crystal balls.  Un  focused  05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. If I were king, I would not have articles like this much later in the design cycle, but that is not Wikipedia policy, and decisions here should implement policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it really important to have an article about a car that's not going to come out until 2009?  Last I checked, it's not even 2007 yet.  Spinach Dip 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with some reluctance. The text sounds awfully speculative ("may be" seems to be repeating itself a lot), but there are some sources in the references section which saves this from being original research. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. After reading the sources provided, they look like speculation as well with very little foundation. With that in mind, I feel the references which support this article are too thin. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Nowhere did this article say this was a concept model, so there's a good chance it will be produced. Atlantis Hawk  09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did this article say it even exists. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's sourced. It does not really fail WP:NOT a crystal ball if it has verifiable, specific sources of repute, which it does. I'd clean up some of that weak speculative text though. -- Elaragirl | | | | | | TalkundefinedCount 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant weak keep, describes multiple non-trivial crystalballing from sources as close to reliable as auto-industry speculation can come. Barno 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. "May ... might ... might ... may ..." -- this is just repeating rumours. There is not a single verifiable fact in the entire article, and the "references" provided, while apparently from reputable publications, still consist of speculation.
 * The verifiable fact is that reputable auto industry insiders are discussing and speculating about this potential new product. The article is about factual, verified speculation of experts about a product that is sure to be notable, if produced.  There are no facts about the vehicle itself at this time, but the discussions regarding are factual, and given the sources, they are notable.   Un  focused  17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * week keep needs more sources but its a good article!!! Audiobooks 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This very speculative, with no facts from anywhere. -- Whpq 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speculative Delete--- words from the article:speculation ... possible ... might ... might ...may ... may ... also a rumor ... not confirmed.
 * Weak Delete The article itself is speculation, with the references cited as speculation, would consider a weak keep with cleanup and trusted-in-the-vehicle-community sources were added --Fittysix 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pontiac until GM actually confirms its existence. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 100% pure speculation -- and until it's officially announced, it will simply be updated with more and fresher speculation. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Speculation," "might be," "may," "rumor" - crystal ballism. Let's just wait for 2008. Delete. D e nni  talk 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (remember Articles for deletion/Planetenergy?) --SunStar Net 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources, such as the Chicago Tribune, are verifiable and the subject is no doubt notable.  RFerreira 06:31, 17 November 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.