Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport utility sedan


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sport utility sedan

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

Article is original research and has no references. I am also listing Sport utility wagon as a related article. See also related AfDs: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility coupe (2nd nomination), and Sport utility convertible. swa q  15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   — swa  q  15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Pages are pure speculation and utter nonsense with no references. Since when is a Chrysler 300C a "Sport Utility Sedan" and a WWII Army Jeep an "SUV"?--Flash176 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as theres lots of vehicles that are classified as SUVs that aren't shaped like a station wagon, or hatchback coupe, I figured that making articles about different subsets of the SUV would increase awareness of the vague criteria for bodystyling of SUVs. But since sport utility coupe has been deleted, and sport utility convertible is currently being nominated for deletion, I say lets merge the content from all those different articles to sport utility convertible. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Rather bad OR too, since it defines itself as a "sedan that meets SUV criteria", while a SUV is defined as "a station wagon built on a light-truck chassis, with a few exceptions"; I would have to conclude : "a sedan that is a station wagon built on a light-truck chassis, just that it isn't a station wagon or built on a light-truck chassis, but it, um, could have been." In two words: rubbish and nonsense. Arsenikk (talk)  20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. To my knowledge only one vehicle has been marketed as a Sport Utility Sedan, the Subaru Legacy Outback SUS (not the Subaru Legacy parent model). It's basically a marketing term. Anything else is a hybrid. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect Sport Utility Wagon, if redirect, then to Crossover (automobile). Google Books - 36 hits on sport utility wagon, few of them about the Subaru. Google Scholar - 6 hits, all about the Subaru. Google News - 600 hits, some of them about the Subaru, but alot about Chrysler too. 9500 ghits, some of them about Subaru, but certainly not all. SUW is used, the article just needs a rewrite. The Isuzu MU-7, this Business Week article about the Alfa Romeo Kamel, (New Car Buying Guide articles) Honda Pilot & Buick Rainier, this Business Week article on the Volvo XC70, all show that SUW is in use. 70.51.10.69 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 70.51.10.69, two things. First of all, you may want to consider registering so that your opinion is given full weight (see Articles_for_deletion, 6th bullet down]]).


 * As for your examples, the Rainier and Pilot are incorrectly referred to as wagons by New Car Buying Guide. There are 209,000 Google hits linking the Pilot with sport utility vehicle, but only 135 linking it with -wagon. The Rainier is a full-frame vehicle and is basically a Trailblazer with a different front end, so you can't really call that a wagon without calling the Trailblazer, Envoy, 9-7x, Ascender, and Bravada wagons, but they're well defined as SUV's. There's also the thing of only 62 hits on SUW for the Rainier vs. 13,700 for SUV.--Flash176 (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter. It's a valid search term, and should point somewhere (crossover), or explain where to find information (disambig page). As the article is total crap, it needs to either be rewritten, or redirected. Deletion is not helpful for people wanting to use Wikipedia. Since Business Week uses the term, it is a term seen by a wide audience. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am all for navigational aids, but remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ningauble (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * redirects are cheap (an oft used Wikipedia adage) 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - These terms are not established automobile design types. Article is either original research or marketers' attempts to differentiate identical models, thus making the terms part of their BS (Boastful Superlatives). — CZmarlin (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Motor vehicle classification blends is the author's completely WP:OR typology. Ningauble (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - somehow I missed this one... Per all the above, delete without doubt. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:35, 21 August 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.