Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow-pure OR in contravention of WP:OR policy. Non-encyclopaedic. Article admits this list can never be complete. BlueValour 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. WegianWarrior 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft AdamBiswanger1 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This one is unencyclopedic, unright source which means unnecessary article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --BrownHairedGirl 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOT.--Dakota 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. Although apparently accurate, the list is somewhat pointless. Any automaker could use a number for a model name, and the duplicate alphabetic model names exist because the listed companies are related (Zephyr -> Ford/Lincoln/Mercury... good grief) — otherwise I think we'd have seen some patent or copyright infringement lawsuits. And Mazda has a B-series in two parts of the world? Earth-shaking stuff. -- Slowmover 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I must say, I'm amazed at some of the articles people pour their energy into. Themindset 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatent listcruft. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Pathlessdesert 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see who or how this harms anyone, it's surely useful to somebody. Keep, don't delete, no bullies/gangs --matador300 22:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - simply, it breaches WP policy. This is not a guideline, it is mandatory. There is no point in having policies if they are ignored. Talk of gangs/bullies is simply daft - folks who edit on here know they have to fit in with clear policies. BlueValour 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - putting things into an order is hardly original research. Taking that view would mean that the categorisation process could be seen as original research. Mallanox 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - They haven't put things in order; they have identified vehicles with common nameplates - it is unsourced so where did the information come from? The editors'own research of course. BlueValour 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. This is a cear case of WP:OR. Gwernol 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article could be useful as a kind of super-dismbiguation/x-ref page. Plus, it's an interesting article in its own right. Mallanox 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article could be useful as a clear example of OR - even inclusionists are against OR - How can u vote keep? BlueValour 01:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am absolutely against OR. I don't think this is anything like research. Arraging things isn't research, nothing is presented here that couldn't be easily done by anyone else with an interest in cars. If the article said "I've been out on the streets and noticed that all Ford Probes are blue", that would be research. Mallanox 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the exact opposite of original research. Every statement is subject to factual verification. WP:OR states "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." (I reformatted the list but did not change the words.) Which of these proscriptions does the article violate? None. There is no original research in this article. User:Mallanox is precisely right that this is a "super-disambiguation" page. It's an index to other articles in Wikipedia. It's a useful way for a reader who knows the name of an automobile to get to the right article. It's a useful part of Wikipedia. Also, "listcruft" is not a criterion for deletion, but even if it were, it would not be applicable because this article is list gold. Keep. Fg2 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dab as needed. Vegaswikian 18:30, 6 August 2006 (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.