Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audi Navigation Plus

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. None of the keep comments address the fundamental issue of notability, one of the basic requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. --jonny-m t 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Navigation Plus

A brand of sat-nav. No independent references or demonstration of notability. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING (promotional in tone - multiple external links to shops; unit prices of item mentioned). Also many parts of it violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't to be written like a promotional piece at all and it certainly isn't written like a manual. In fact it's a well written article, however notability is not demonstrated. --neonwhite user page talk 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECT to the request for deletion! What a draconian action by Chryslerforever1988 !!!!

Whilst it may be a brand of SatNav - it is a "standard fit", or "optional factory fit" of an official OEM manufacturer product. The article itself (ie, "Audi Navigation Plus") is NOT an advert of any kind. Yes, it does have links to external shops, but these are merely for mapping updates, and for ongoing product support, outside the "official" dealer network. These are included in the article, because anyone who has actually owned any of these units will vouch for the extreme difficulty in getting the correct info on mapping updates from the official Volkswagen or Audi dealers! Indeed, there seems to be considerable misunderstanding of the in-depth functions of these units (and I am not referring to any secret engineering modes - just standard funtions which appear in the not-very-well-written user manual!).

If you wish to delete this by following Chryslerforever1988s' angle of attack, then every single commercial product on Wikipedia should be deleted, including stuff like, say: Multi Media Interface, Audi A4, Microsoft Windows, Tramadol - and heavens forbid - everything to do Chrysler or Volkswagen!

Independent references - what, exactly are you seeking. Audi Nav Plus is NOT something anyone can "purchase over the counter", and it certainly isn't a product which you can compare against another. I don't ever recall seeing in any Audi brochure the option to choose from the "Audi Nav Plus", or say a Lexus nav system, or maybe I missed Audi offering to factory fit a Nissan Nav system, or even a Pioneer Sat Nav - therefore, it is not likely to be subject to any kind of "independent reviews"!

Notability - I've looked at the relvent article, and this seems to be a grey area. It certainly is not black and white. Therefore, instead of nominating the article for deletion Chryslerforever1988 should actually suggest ways of improving the article, particlarly as he/she (???) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. He/she certainly hasn't had the decency to raise the issue on the discussion section of that particular WikiProject! Nor did he notify me of his actions on my talk page - extremely bad manners in my book (unless he/she has something to hide) Therefore, what, exactly, is the area of concern regarding Notability?

As User:Neon white states, it is NOT written like a manual, and it IS a well written article!

78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability concerns; no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I disagree with the nominator about the promo/guide claim, although I do see sections which need improved to remove peacock language (#RNS-E to car integration, #Retrofitting RNS-E) or instructions (#RNS-E Engineering mode). These could be improved by editing if there was any content which was sourceable, but I can find none. IP-based user above seems to admit that no independent coverage exists? If that is the case, a Wikipedia article should not exist either. Perhaps redirect to Automotive navigation system? Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The other problems could be solved by editing, this one can't. Huon (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it is not a promo; but notability a problem. King Pickle (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IP editor has found independent references, and it is a well written, balanced article. I disagree with the redirect to Automotive navigation system, on the grounds that CARiN is suggested as being split into a separate article, and the BMW iDrive has its own article. Furthermore, virtually all portable car nav systems have their own articles, so why not OEM? -- Teutonic Tamer 11:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 78.32.143.113 and Teutonic Tamer may be the same user. Please refer to their contributions for evidence. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a valuable reference source for many owners who are told by the manufacturer "our sat nav system cannot be retrofitted". If a reference to http://www.navplus.us was added (and if Wikipedia check out this link you will see there is NO manufacturer advertising, it is solely the work of enthisiasts) this would PROVE the presence of a significant body of INDEPENDENT information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.59.151 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Refs 1,3,6,9 & 10 are all online stores of some kind. These would not be needed if genuine sources could be found. 14days (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines and as per the above delete points. Razor flame 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.