Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convenience package (2nd nomination)
- 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. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Convenience package (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)
This was kept before on the basis that it could be sourced, but it still hasn't been. It's a list of features that appear on packages that some car makers call "convenience package" (and others use different names, or bundle the same features in different packages, or they are standard, or whatever) and the sources are all primary. X appears in convenience package, source: manufacturer Y listing X in convenience package. That is WP:OR, pure and simple, and there has never been a single reliable independent secondary source to support this list of random things that random makers bundle in a random collection with this random name. Let me talk you through this by reference to the articles in the list claimed to be "typically" included:
The list of random things with some observations of my own
|
---|
|
Now, it's quite possible that some of these are included in a pack called convenience by some makers. As it stands, however, it is an indiscriminate collection of information, something Wikipedia is not. There is no source for most items, and those that are sourced, there is no evidence that this is a general name for the pack, no evidence that these items are usually included in such a pack, and no evidence that other sources consider this a separate subject. The most you could say is that this is a list of features that are optional on some cars (and standard or unavailable on others), some of whihc may be offered in various packs or trim levels by some manufacturers. That is, pretty much, all you can say about this list of items. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Corporate PR-speak; no clear definition of exactly what this term means or what it includes. So poorly defined that although this article treats it as an automotive term, it appears to be used in other industries as well; in the previous AfD somebody cited a reference to "convenience packaging" in the brewing industry. I would put this in the same category as when a cold-calling salesperson announces "this is a courtesy call..." --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Current article relies entirely on original synthesis of primary sources as explained by the nominator, and would have to be rewritten if a secondary source could be found. Same goes for Safety package, Handling package, Sports package, etc. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the previous rationale for keeping this article was that convenience packages had been the topic of secondary sources in other industries than the automotive. That's a mistake, because this article is unmistakably about cars only so an article using those sources would be a rewrite. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.