Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Car

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to Supercar.Additionaly, Smith's entire proposal is executed:) (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Car

edit
Hyper Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article in this situation defeats the following: WP:Point of view, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:D, WP:SCAM, WP:NWFCTM. An article like this is hard to create, due to limited resources, but this does not mean the use of opinionated resources are permitted, and that copy and pasting is permitted. As mentioned before with the opinion-filled resources, the author tends to use websites like Quora (which isn't reliable for primary information in the first place) to fill in the gap of missing references, and also tends to copy-and-paste the information from other websites to make sure "the article is true" (WP:Point of view and WP:COPYPASTE involved here). Another issue is the use of false info, due to the inclusion of the 1950s, although the hypercars came in at the 1990s. The article is also not disambiguated, since there is another page with the same name, called Hypercar. The avoidance here isn't supposed to happen among Wikipedia pages, but are supported with added info, such as something like "Chevrolet Corvette" and "Chevrolet Corvette (C7)" (WP:D and WP:SCAM involved here). Last issue is the WP:NWFCTM policy being defeated, because, although some of the cars in the particular page are well above others, does not mean they are hypercars, proving the point that some of these cars may have been "some that came to mind as a hypercar". Ecks Dey (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is your point to delete supercar, or do you have a view on this article? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andy Dingley -- My point is Hyper Car substantially duplicates the intent of Supercar. We don't need a series of articles on any subject qualified by infra < sub < hypo < ultra < super < hyper. Rhadow (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Supercar- I agree the article is poorly written. However, supercar is a real term and deserves to be covered. [1] Since it is related to supercar, I'd suggest merging the info into that article.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly an unpopular term amongst some WP editors (and yes, supercar is regularly claimed here to not be a valid descriptive term and is bulk-removed from infoboxes). Yet, sources such as Top Gear do regularly use both terms [2] and they are RS, editors here are not.
I would be happy to see this merged to a named section within supercar though. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 (c · m) 05:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"false information"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyper_Car&oldid=1070591269"