Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures

Important Update
The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons.

I would also like to apologize to all parties interested for not including this information originally. I was so focused on properly linking to the corresponding AfD nomination that I completely forgot about it, no bad faith on my part. It did not help either that the talk page has not been tagged properly (I'll try to fix that in a moment). Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REFERENCE ALL VOTES TO Deletion policy
Administrators: Please disregard votes that do not follow the guidelines for deletion. Most of the votes do not cite valid reasons for deleting, rather than editing an article. --matador300 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Voters: please modify your votes to reference a proper reason for deletion. POV is not a reason for deletion. Almost every reason given below is not a valid reason for completely deleting an article, including being a list of failures. --matador300 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is a rather special case, this article does not ONLY contain POV (which is not a reason for deletion), it will ALWAYS contain POV by definition - at least under the current title and vague criteria of inclusion. The proposed more substantial and specific criteria are either impossible to apply due to lack of available data or do not equal "commercial failure" - so, the article cannot be cleansed from POV and will be a perpetual POV farm, leading to numerous conflicts and disputes. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Users having no interest in automobiles do not violate any guideline by expressing their views here, or do they? Do not try to discredit other users with some strange reasons of yours, unless they are sockpuppets or something. If you put up an article on your cat on WP (I assume that if you had a cat, chances are it would probably be not that notable), I can nominate or vote it for deletion, even if I have no interest in cats or domestic animals at all, as well as yourself.
 * This is utter nonsense. Quoting from Business Week that the Catera is a failure does not violate NPOV. POV is NOT a reason to delete an article. Look at the criterion again. This AfD is disruptive to Wikipedia. --matador300 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment All further votes MUST BE SOURCED TO THE PROPER guideline for deletion. It is just wrong to put in a delete vote without citing a proper justification under the wp guidelines.

What's Happening Now!!
Excuse me? Are we supposed to be having two separate discussions on the main page and on the talk page??? Bravada, talk - 12:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed clarification as it was accidentally placed on the this page rather than the main page. Your excused by the way, excessive use of question and exclamation marks does not assist your position or come across as polite. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exclamation marks serve a purpose in the wikilink, as well as were intended to draw the attention of people keeping this page on their watchlist - it is not that easy to distinguish between the talk page and project page, so I wanted to draw attention and get some answers - I was not sure what was happening here and I wanted to make things clear. Question marks appeared in abundance because of my total confusion. Please do not take things personally, I did not mean that YOU made a mistake, I was just unsure of what was happening and wanted a fast answer before everybody gets confused and we end up in a mess. Bravada, talk - 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)