Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tests on rollers


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Tests on rollers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Meaningless article on a non-notable topic. Contested speedy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Pointless article, not encyclopedic, and it's pretty much unsalvageable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge. This content could be of use on 4x4. The test this article's author is writing about was rather illuminating in highlighting some of the flaws in different drive mechanisms. Lizzius (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are only five sentences here and a totally incomprehensible table. I find it hard to see anything here that could be described as "illuminating". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article cannot be merged with 4x4 because it applies to e.g. 2x4 (Volvo V50) and 6x6 as well. Could be merged with differential. More green fields and less red fields means better car from the point of this test. That's quite comprehensible. Yes/No can be changed to Pass/Fail. Espr14 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  The subject is related to deferentials as mentioned above.  I see no point this article nor the table. MB (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Cars tested on rollers" or similar. (it can not be a list with the table, can it?) I don't understand how editors do not comprehend the table and the meaning of the article, which is quite clear in my opinion. DeVerm (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my professional engineering career, I have designed and built the control systems for rolling road dynos, including multi-axle systems. I cannot make sense of this article. If you can understand and explain it, perhaps you can help us out? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just an Electronics engineer and feel mechanics a weak point for me but like I said the article is clear enough to understand it when reading it closely enough. Put a car with one or more wheels on rollers then try to drive: will the car move or just have it's wheels spin on the rollers? Repeat this for different numbers of wheels and you get a very good impression of the car's off-road capabilities. The article is clear and concise. DeVerm (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But what is the encyclopedic value of such an article? Is the table nearly complete? Of course not. Most entries do not contain a model year.  There must be several hundred vehicles offered for sale every year.  I can' t imagine it would ever be in good shape from the perspective of accuracy or completeness.  I agree this is pointless.  Should we also have an article listing all cars and the number of airbags the have, or any other feature/attribute/characteristic?  I reiterate my Delete. MB (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC).
 * MB, I was not trying to make you change your vote; I just voted myself and you are commenting on my vote. On your comment about completeness: an incomplete table does not mean that the article must be deleted: it means editors must try to add more items to get closer to complete. There is WP:NORUSH. DeVerm (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article gives a simplistic yes/no answer for whether a car can be roller tested on its "side wheels" or not. This is meaningless, for two reasons. Firstly it is an unrealistic situation to test. When are a car's "side wheels" rotated in isolation?  More importantly, the key to this article would seem to be something based on the using of non-locking 'free' differentials or controlled / locking / limited differentials. Yet this is just reduced to a simple yes/no for wheel combinations. This makes no sense whatsoever. For any testing of modern traction control systems or differentials it's essential to recognise that they're controlled and have a variable action, not just that they're either totally free or totally solid as this describes.
 * This article makes no sense and conveys no useful information. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy it is probably from an editor who does not have English as first language. English is my 2nd language and this may be why I read it different than you? I say that because you say the article does not make sense (to you) while it does to me and others... or at least those who created and edited the article. If you ever come in a situation with a car in snow, ice, mud or other slippery surface and you can't move forward, you may appreciate the value of these tests. Because it is about the situation where some cars just spin one or more wheels around while other wheels are stationary and the car doesn't move. Some cars are stuck like that while others don't. The rollers under the wheels simulate the wheel(s) that do not have traction so they can spin without moving the car, which is then left to the other wheels. I hope this makes sense to you because I am at the limit of my explanation capabilities :) DeVerm (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. I'm not sure what would be a good merge target.  Something like car suspension systems or automobile dynamics or something like that, but I haven't found it yet.  If no good merge target can be located, then delete.  If somebody stepped up and said they wanted to work on this, and had a reasonable plan for how they would turn this into something useful, then moving it to draft would be acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is sourced to whatever some random auto club decides they're going to do on YouTube with whatever car they can get their hands on at the time. WP:CRUFT for sure.  This isn't based on reliable sources; it needs manufacturer's data, not some random silliness in a parking lot. MSJapan (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article may have some information and sources but nothing actually suggesting this is any co text for Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see the purpose of this article on Wikipedia. It is not notable as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems more like a tech manual that one would receive with their car (maybe), except for the humorous videos in parking lots and garages. Linking to YouTube videos as references that show cars on turning their wheels on rollers makes no sense for an encyclopedia - and these are not reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely meaningless. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  10:19, 20 June 2016 (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.