Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Years in motoring

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 keep. Please nominate categories for deletion separately from articles, at WP:CFD. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in motoring[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For all articles in this category(and the category itself because it will be empty):This is pure, unsourced(in one instance: one fact is sourced)WP:OR. Delete the junk.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Burning Pillar (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - These "xxxx years in motoring" are unreferenced articles that mention only a brief and narrow perspective, as well as no context. In other words, there is no real value to the readers. The related category is also superfluous. There is no definition of "motoring" as it typically refers to the act of driving motor vehicles. However, the articles focus on the manufacture of new cars. Moreover, these descriptions seem to be short and random selection naming various car models that were introduced or marketed in a few markets. There is a far more detailed source of information in this topic among articles that are listed under Template:Automotive industry. These include more referenced details about the automotive industry events within national markets. These provide much greater value and background regarding the "motoring industry" in particular markets, in contrast to these "motoring by year" stubs. CZmarlin (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this is grounds for deletion. The facts could easily be sourced and more information added to give a wider perspective. Timelines and events-by-year pages are a well-established part of Wikipedia. There are publications such as Automobile Year and Australian Motoring Yearbook which treat the car industry on a year-by-year perspective. It's clearly not original research: all this is well covered in the motoring press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is WP:JUNK, all these articles are WP:SYNTH of events. Which events from the Automobile Year and similar publications do you want to include in the article? All of them? Your personal selection?Burning Pillar (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Motoring is a notable topic. AFD is not cleanup. The articles could be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, the category should be proposed at WP:CFD, not here, though if all the articles are deleted, it could probably be speedied. Until then, the category should not have been nominated for deletion at any venue. Smartyllama (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear how this is OR. Doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria in WP:NOTDIR. As stated above, AFD is not cleanup. If something can be cleaned up, it should be cleaned up rather than deleted. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colapeninsula, Smartyllama, and South Nashua:. AFD is not cleanup. That does not mean that we have to keep every junk, especially not this: These articles are the author's personal WP:SYNTH about what the author deemed important for these years. They cannot be assumed to resemble properly weighted articles about what happened in that time period; most of them only include cars, which means that they are effectively spreading MISinformation. Burning Pillar (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Burning Pillar: If there are inaccuracies or POV, you're encouraged to correct them. "Year in X" content is fairly common on Wikipedia, I'm not clear how this is any different. South Nashua (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, AFD is not cleanup. Lepricavark (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP? Let me provide you a different part of this essay that does not support you:WP:HARMFUL, which expicitely states that the lack of reliable sources is a VALID deletion criterion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is directed towards normal problems, especially format, grammar problems, WP:DEADEND, or minor issues with our content policies that do not justify removing the entire article. It is not directed towards unsourced, suspicious articles. Burning Pillar (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quit with the badgering, please. Lepricavark (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ad hominem is not a valid argument.Burning Pillar (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be more interested in arguing than in building an encyclopedia. I have better things to do. Lepricavark (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEBURNINGPILLAR. Other than that policy, I also agree with User:Colapeninsula. There are reliable sources which support having motoring articles on a year-by-year basis. Articles need referencing, not deleting. Jevansen (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Unsourced does not equate to non-notable/OR. These lists contain notable events about notable companies and milestones within the motor industry. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator, (Burning Pillar) has failed to provide any valid reason for deletion. We do not delete articles because they need improvement. We delete articles in cases where by their very nature they cannot be improved, but that does not apply here. As of the time I am writing this, we have 8 Keep !votes and 2 Delete votes, and one of those delete votes has a rationale that would be better solved by choosing a better name for the articles that does not use the word "motoring" rather than deletion. This can be done by any editor without an AfD discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCLEANUP is an essay, and it does not support the claim(see WP:NOHARM).WP:V is one of our core content policies. It seems that WP:AFD has a WP:Local consensus trying to subvert our core policy WP:V(which mandates an inline citation for challenged article content).Burning Pillar (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you keep using WP:JUNK for your deletion rationale. Which is an essay. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:JUNK nor WP:ATA are always inappropiate in deletion discussions. They only start to be inappropiate if they are used in a manner contradicted by established policy. Then you have to give something more(as argument) than just mindlessly linking a part of an essay. In this case you have to argue with a core content policy(including WP:V) or a Pillar(including WP:IAR) itself(because I brought WP:V into the discussion). In addition, this essay even contradicts the claims and is being misapplied, as you can see under WP:NOHARM(I also want to point you towards the fact that I am NOT the only one favouring deletion).Burning Pillar (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something in this discussion about WP guidelines? My suggestion is that everyone please read the actual content of these series of articles. It is true that there are many WP articles that describe various topics organized by their annual events, for example the wide variety subjects listed in "Category:Categories by time". However, that is not the issue with these series. Rather, the major problem is the actual content of these articles. Most glaring is the title of each of them: the "Years in motoring" that is clearly misleading. As I noted in my initial posting here, the definition of "motoring" is typically accepted as meaning '"traveling in a car, especially when considered as a recreation"' - [see here]. However, the content of these series of articles consists of a mostly limited and completely random sketches of new car introductions in a few major markets. There already exits a more comprehensive source for that type of information under "cars introduced by year". Perhaps these articles should be renamed and would then be more correctly placed under the "Category:Cars introduced in XXXX". Another problem are the suggestions that we need to keep the articles because they can be improved. It is possible to improve anything, but is should be better than starting from the current random musings about the automobile marketplace that have nothing to do with the subject of driving. Rather than wasting time on arguing about the value of keeping these series, they must be completely overhauled to focus on the the subject of their title, which is a discussion of driving (especially for pleasure) in cars by each year. Such information would be valuable and interesting to trace the changes affecting motorists (such as with driving regulations, taxation, roads, infrastructure of roads and bridges, etc.) across the world. However, expanding and referencing the existing content would mean changing the title to reflect the "automobile introductions in various world markets by year" and putting them under the Timeline of motor vehicle brands. As far as the current content of these "Years in motoring", I think it could be all merged into the existing "Timeline of motor vehicle brands" article. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my !vote at the top of this thread and replaced it with a fuller explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I closed this AfD discussion this morning as a procedural keep because it is listed as a category discussion, not realising that there are a large number of articles being discussed here. Per discussion at my talk page, I've reopened the discussion, but would ask that an extra 24 hours be allowed before it it closed again. Therefore, this discussion should not be closed before 23:43 on 26 May. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Burning Pillar; the next time you nominate multiple articles, please list them under one of the articles, not under a category. Doing it the way you did it sets off alarms because you cannot AfD a category. Those go to MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this seems to be a case where the articles should be improved, not deleted. Just because no sources are mentioned, doesn't mean none are out there. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 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.