Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SRT Tomahawk (2nd 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SRT Tomahawk
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article on this fictional video game car was kept in the last deletion discussion on the grounds that it has been the subject of five "articles" in reputable media: Each of these articles is nothing but a warmed over press release. Somebody in marketing took the imaginary specs for this video game car, and emailed it out to some magazine bloggers. They proceed to take the press release and warm it over slightly, producing a 100-200 bit of fluff. We routinely delete articles whose only sources are glossed over press released. Significant coverage means an actual journalist or author did actual work to write something; not astro turf.It's obvious that nobody would take a 2,000 horsepower video game car supposedly slated for production in 20 years seriously, and nobody would expend any effort researching or writing about such a thing. In general, for made up stuff to become notable, it needs to affect or impinge upon the real world in some way. Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  08:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  08:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per last discussion. I think the nominator just explained the reasons as to why it is to be kept above. I can see (once again) a theory of WP:IDONTLIKEIT has appeared. Nördic   Nightfury  08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it could be this theory: when all of the coverage of a product or company is based on capsule articles, where each article has a 1:1 correspondence with each fact contained in a press release that appeared the day before the article, the coverage is trivial. A recent example is the CarDehko archipelago: Articles for deletion/CarDekho, Articles for deletion/CarDekho (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/CarBay. These happen to be fresh in my mind, but more examples can be provided if anyone is unsure this is a solid precedent.None of the coverage includes any serious questions put to the company touting this product, such as whether any actual engineering was done, or if they picked a number like 2,000 horsepower (or 2,600? whatever) out of the air because it sounded cool. The premise that this represents any kind of future technology from Chrysler doesn't hold up, due to the lack of any evidence of rigor in the design. Neither is there any evidence of this imaginary object intersecting the real world in any way, such as affecting the sales or critical reception of the video game for better or worse, affecting the careers of the designers for better or worse, or forming a meaningful impression on the public's imagination. A good contrast would be Batmobile, which did all of these things, and has significant coverage in general interest publications, not only hyper-specialized online news blogs. If MOS:REALWORLD were adhered to, the contents of SRT Tomahawk would boil away to nothing, because there's nothing there but some made-up car stats that could have been written by a kid. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The essay Identifying and using independent sources puts it this way: "Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure those AFD examples are really creating the strongest precedent here. Most of those were relisted multiple times and only had 1-2 participants. They're borderline WP:SOFTDELETEs with discussion like that. Sergecross73   msg me  21:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  08:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Rehashed press releases are insufficient for notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Merge and subsequent redirect to Vision Gran Turismo. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Conceptually, sure, but we're playing it pretty fast and loose to call this a press release. Not sure I agree with that part of the assessment... Sergecross73   msg me  19:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't agree with the assessment that the sources so far are "just press releases" they're full-on articles. Beyond the ones listed above, other reliable third party sources have been written as well, like The Verge and AutoWeek. I found another one at Torque News as well - I'm unfamiliar with the website, but its another third party article dedicated around the subject. Some sort of combination of the 5 sources above, and the 3 sources I've presented, is enough to meet the WP:GNG at least. Sergecross73   msg me  19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw all of those too. I am calling all of them warmed over press releases, because they are based entirely on what the company has chosen to give to the press. The text, the photos, the animation, clips -- all of it advertising and marketing content, given to the media, who spend five minutes reworking it into a "story". It's a half step up from press releases directly from the subject, but that alone is not enough meet notability minimums.Writing an article based entirely on a subject's statement to the press is valid journalism, and can be cited to establish a fact in an article, but only on subjects whose notability has been established on something besides the press pack.We have history of Wikipedia being abused by video game companies for pure advertising. A prime selling point of many of these games is the quantity of cars or other toys players can buy or unlock. iRacing.com was bloated with lists of simulated cars, spawning sub-articles of more cars, and of simulated race tracks. Vision Gran Turismo is filled with quite a bit of this excess. It's purely Wikipedia parroting the company's "Now with 100% more!" pitches. SRT Tomahawk would shrink to 100 words if you deleted all of the "The Tomahawk X is the penultimate variant of the Tomahawk, built to do seriously high top speeds with no problems" peacockery. This pattern of using Wikiepdia to create advert-articles by CarDekho, iRacing and here Polyphony Digital is what motivates me to try to put a stop to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're setting the bar a bit too high here. We (Wikipedia) can't write an article around press releases themselves, no. But third party websites writing their own articles around press releases? And then us using their writing, not the press release itself? That's acceptable. I mean, I get it if they write like 2 sentences and then literally copy/paste the PR below - that's not acceptable either. But they actually wrote full-fledged articles centered entirely around the subject, in their own words. That part is key. They wrote actual articles, and that's where it crosses the line over into "acceptable" territory. Sergecross73   msg me  21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got slammed pretty hard in a recent AFD (and not too much later at ORCP) for making the exact-same argument. I'm not sure that view has consensus, and given that notability defaults to "delete" where some idea doesn't obviously jive, I'd suggest your argument would get slammed pretty hard too with those same participants, given those users weren't video game- or car-oriented. --Izno (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to agree, disagree, or react at all without any sort of reference point as to what in the world you're talking about. Sergecross73   msg me  03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Review the archives at WP:ORCP (or save yourself some time and simply search for a section entitled "Izno"). --Izno (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this, yet another 3 participant AFD narrowly closed delete on a 2-1 basis, where one participant didn't even discuss your sourcing proposal at all? Where you provided one example source at all, which was criticized for being off-topic, with the critique being " has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject". This is a really weak example for any sort of relevant precedent here. Sergecross73   msg me  17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That AFD seems to me to have been confirmed by the handful of people who also commented at the ORCP who were not involved in the original discussion. Mkdw, Kudpung, and Ritchie said I was basically offbase, while Rob defended the !vote explicitly. None of the other users commented on that AFD (save DGG who was a bit more meta). I don't think it's a weak precedent at all, and I bet if I WP:CANVASSed the lot above (audience known to have certain opinions), this AFD straight turns to delete. I think your !vote is reasonable, but I'm not entirely sure it's the presently consensus position (and if I weren't on mobile now I might even take it up at WT:N given your resistance now and my resistance then or at least go peck through the archives there to see whether anyone else has written on it). That all said, I think the topic is better covered in the context of the few RS which might be plausibly associated with it in the context of one or the other of its parent topics. This is certainly not the Portal gun. Do you disagree with that suggestion? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which, I come to find Portal gun has been merged and redirected. (Brief sardonic amusement.) --Izno (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the other aspect of my argument - the discussion was centered around one article in which you discussed one source. And I'm only vaguely familiar with Portal, so I'm in no place to comment on the notability of it's items. Sergecross73   msg me  13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even without this fictional car having any effect on the real world, I would change my mind if any independent, original reviews of the game said that the presence of this car made a meaningful difference in the game, made it better, or it was a significant disappointment. Or anything. It can't be emphasized enough how much of a big nothing we're looking at here. No effect on the real world, no effect on the game it is part of, no influence on other games, or other works of fiction. No evidence that any of the claimed "engineering" "work" for this car ever took place. Nothing original: all kinds of fiction makes up cars with ridiculous stats, and swoopy curves.The car, as presented, is a hoax: it does not represent future technology, because no real was work done to forecast how that technology might work. Companies like Chrysler that have sketched these fanciful cars have invested nothing and committed to nothing.Marketers pay close attention to where we allow advertising and promotion to sneak into the encyclopedia. Keeping this kind of thing around is mistake. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is contradictory and flawed. It cannot both be a "hoax" and "something marketers are using to bring in money". I'm not sure how its either, honestly. It's a concept car. That doesn't make it a "hoax", it's just a conceptual idea. Pieces of fiction, presented as fiction, do not equate to a "hoax". It's also not even a product they're selling for money, nor is it particularly written in a promotional manner. It's not saying "go buy this" or "Isn't this awwwwesome??". If anything, its currently guilty of using too much car-mechanic jargon - your average reader probably has no idea of the significance of "501 pound-feet (679 N·m) of torque". But that, among other things, are a cleanup issue. In a general sense your assessment is way off base. Third party sources separate from the subject wrote dedicated articles about the subject. Its meets the WP:GNG. You can desire it to change the world or leave a lasting impact on society all you want, but the GNG doesn't require such a thing. Just coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Marketers never lie? Huh? It can't be a hoax because marketers said it?It's incorrect to say that anybody defines concept cars to include a picture of a car you made. That false claim is one of the marketing hoaxes this game company is using to advertise their game. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, of course I'm not saying "marketers don't lie", its hard to believe you're making a good-faith effort to understand me if that's all you getting from this. I'm saying what you're describing is not a hoax. Are you operating on a different definition of the word hoax or something? A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as the truth.. There is nothing here that is presented as fact that is really fiction. They are very forthright in the fact that this is a fictional car. The fact that its being used used to sell another product doesn't inherently make it a promotional violation that needs to be erased from Wikipedia. Fictional characters and products are created to sell things all the time. Its no different from Sega creating the fictional Sonic the Hedgehog to sell Sega Genesis/Mega Drives. That doesn't mean you go and delete Sonic the Hedgehog (character). If the third party coverage exists (it does) you can still write a non-promotional article just fine. Sergecross73   msg me  14:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Top Gear is another third party source that dedicated a full article to the subject as well. No press release linked or mentioned as far as I could tell... Sergecross73   msg me  17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America1000 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - FYI, I've rewritten much of the beginning and end of the article. It'll take more of a car fan to know what should be cleared out of the tech stuff, but I've added much content and sources in relation to its creation and reception (the latter focusing much on the impracticality of such a vehicle, which could possibly help calm fears of the article being promotional-based.) It still needs plenty of work, but I believe its enough to at least put these debates about whether or not the article should exist at least. Sergecross73   msg me  18:09, 17 February 2017 (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.