Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures

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 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of automobiles that were commercial failures

This is basically the result of the deletion of the List of successful automobiles - see nomination/Afd page here. The reasoning/rationale is the same (see the above AfD), as those are corresponding articles, and I believe since the last decision was unusually unanimous and widely-supported, I think this should go smoothly too, so that everything remains logical and just. Bravada, talk - 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons. Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. list inherently subject and difficult to maintain. Ohconfucius 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is still not MotorWeek, and the list is mostly unsourced (WP:V, WP:OR). The only sourced items don't seem to fall under the reliable sources guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per sucessful automobiles...Mdcollins1984 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "comercial failures" is a very subjective term. Viridae^Talk 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although to my own surprise I found myself initially leaning to "Keep", at least in theory. As long as the criteria for inclusion are as strict as the title suggests (i.e., if it ended up losing money), then it's as deserving of survival as its polar opposite, which I managed to turn into an encyclopedic entry by tracking down verifiable sources. However, the problem is that in the real world, manufacturers' reticence to publicise their cock-ups will render this article inherently unverifiable, which obviously will violate WP:VERIFY. If someone wants to tackle this page, providing a reliable source for each so-called failure ~ and a reliable source means providing numbers, not a link to an automotive journalist using the word "flop" in his weekly column ~ then I'll reconsider my vote, but only if I can see evidence that verifiable info exists. --DeLarge 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are books on "the world's worst cars", though. [1] [2] [3] WP 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They are unfortunately as inherently POV as magazine columns, so they wouldn't serve too well as references. Bravada, talk - 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's becuase the words: "failure" and "worst" are pretty much by definition POV. That is why I would like to raise the possibility of a name change for this article-to something that can be referenced. Signature^brendel 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the style of the introduction sets a poor tone which continues through all the entries. As just a bland list I would have let it be.GraemeLeggett 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn. It is POV in most cases to say something is a failure, even if sourced. It would not be true to say that all the cars are failures, just seen by a specific person, group etc... as a failure. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Indeed it is non-neutral to say that some car is a failure, but it is perfectly neutral to say that a certain car has been called a failure. We can and should have "facts about opinions." But we need to indicate who, exactly, called them failures. And of course the editors would need to hash out which sources fairly represent a substantial body of opinion. Surely we would all agree that, whether or not the Edsel "was" a failure, many people certainly called it a failure... and it shouldn't be hard to cite someone who has called it that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - i still think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - and this just falls short of any encyclopedic value as well as being very hard to keep NPOV.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 'commercial failure' is hard to define precisely and enters into dangerous terriotirty. Many cars should have sold better than they did but were still commerically somewhat successful. To ambigious for me, I'm happy to see it gone. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating Comment Thank you for informing of the previous AfD results. Having read and considered them I still feel the article is ambigious (e.g. what qualifies a car as a commerical success?) and therefore leading onto dangerous territory. It is not for wikipedia to inform consumers as to what cars not to buy. Whilst that isn't the aim of the article it is a byproduct. Sorry, I still need a very good reason to change my vote. But thanks for brining that to my attention, I'm slightly worried I didn't notice it had an earlier AfD nomination... Must be tired. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Again to clarify my vote per the talk page: Firstly my basis for deletion is as follows: There are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. It is an ambigious description to give a car. Some vehicles have terrible safety records, sold less than expected but still made profit...are they commerical failures? Is it sales profit alone that qualifies a car as a commercial failure? is it the safety record? is it how well it sold in the USA or how well it did globally? is it how the first models sold, how well subsequent designs sold or how the entire design as a whole sold. For example, some cars like the ford fiesta have gone through nearly 20 years of development, to the extent that the current fiestas are totally different (and incompatable) with the original design. Is it the technical performance specifications i.e how fast it can go?...the list is absolutely endless. Well, the answer is its probably all or most of those above things that qualify a car as a commercial failure. But where we draw the line is a totally subjective choice made by the editor, it can never be anything but that. Therefore the article is inherantly a POV farm. So in accordance with my above explanation it qualifies for deletion by breaching:

• WP:NOT Because wikipedia "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" As described above classifying a car as a commercial failure is inhertantly the editors own POV and so this article is effectively a list of bad car reviews. WP is NOT an online vehicular review database. If you want a car review - go to autotrader.com. The thing which really kills this article is - who would find it useful? Well its of no encyclpopedic use to anybody because its entirely subjective. I'm getting somewhat offput now of the jumping through hoops for this AfD. It seems pretty clear the consensus is for a delete. Please, there is no more need to change the voting criteria. (and I say that totally unbiased by that being my vote.)WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles. --Gray Porpoise 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles (second nomination). --Gray Porpoise 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the arguments from the article's previous AfD. I'm not changing my vote to delete, but another alternative would be to move the page to a title that states more specific guidelines (e.g. "List of automobiles that caused their manufacturer to lose money", "List of automobiles that sold less than x units", etc.).
    • Comment - it would require much more than moving, it would require effectively recreating the article according to a newly-set standard. As concerns your first proposition, it was already mentioned that it is very hard to establish what financial result the production of a given model had for the manufacturer. Even assuming we would in some mysterious way get hold of such information, a financial result of such a project can be presented differently depending on the accounting procedure employed (e.g. Chrysler in the 1970s did not account for development costs when appraising individual models' profitability)
      As concerns your other proposition, the list would be unbelievably long and very hard to keep completed, as an inexplicable number of automobiles were and are manufactured as one-offs or in short-series. Besides, it does not always equal a failure, many successful exclusive models are sold in small quantities, which are on the other hand sometimes even exceeding manufacturers' expectations. Bravada, talk - 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cassavau 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because of lack of any sources at all. Alternatively, move the unsourced entries to Talk—that is, all of them—effectively blanking the article, and require that new entries cite a source that describes the automobile using the word "failure." We could have a neutral, verifiable list of "automobiles that have been called failures," but due to failure to cite sources this isn't a useful beginning to such an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "unsuccessful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's subjective opinions, guesses and preferences—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. As has been agreed, Wikipedia is not Motorweek. --Scheinwerfermann 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From what I can see, this article presents a NPOV list of cars which could be considered unsuccessful, and the reason as to why that is. Note that all brands are represented, as per all brands having had flops. Someone above has said that 'commercial failures' is a subjective term. I would disagree with this. Something is a commercial failure if it has not made enough money - this seems like a simple enough thing to determine. Nevertheless, I would suggest that this article be changed to something like, "List of automobiles which are considered unsuccessful" or something along those lines. The article has also been described as difficult to maintain - I would disagree with that also. It seems to have a fairly comprehensive list of flops already, and they are not that common an occurence that more would need to be added on a regular basis. This sort of unusual article is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia great, but it needs to have sources added to it, rather than being deleted wholesale. Drett 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all, not all brands are represented, only a small fraction of them, and this list is perhaps "fairly comprehensive" only with regard to some automobiles sold in the United States in recent years. It is a "list of automobiles considered unsuccessful by somebody that the editors could think of" and it will inherently be one. Almost any vehicle can be considered unsuccessful in some aspect, and you would find the strangest arguments for that. For example, the original Ford Mustang could be labelled a success, but then some subsequent versions can be argued "not to have lived to expectations" and there you go, Ford Mustang is an unsuccessful vehicle. We do not (at least I hope) maintain a List of politicians described as fraud or stupid, which could be similarly pointless and infinite by definition. Such expressions of somebody else's POV do not belong in an encyclopedia either. Bravada, talk - 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Although I voted delete on the similar list of successful automobiles a day or two ago, I think this list has some potential. It looks like WP:OR right now; but if sources could be added, I would be willing to change to keep. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely POV article with original research. dposse 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This list has already survived AFD, why do another? Many people clearly like and support this page, and it harms no one. Many articles have been given sourced refernces by myself an others, but I have abanonded it for fear of deltetion by authors such the nominator here, who has not made it to my good guy list. Deletion guidelines don't even support any of the delete votes above, administrators please take note. --matador300 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - for the deletion guideline applicable, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed - the first bullet, WP:NOT. Apart from the fact that the article is inherently POV in this form and would have to be rebuilt from the ground up not to be, which is equal with it being deleted. It also serves as a bad precedent an example for other potential WP:NOT and WP:NPOV violating articles. Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unlike the former list this one is verifiable and NPOV if we stick to widely publicized failures, e.g. the Edsel, the Tucker. Gazpacho 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  To make the point, I went in and removed everything except the entries that have some significance outside the hobby (e.g. led to a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, butt of comedy jokes) Gazpacho 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the name should then be changed to "List of automobiles that had a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, or became the butt of comedy jokes." Signature^brendel 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing that in such an illustrative way :D Is there anything more left to say? Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• "List of famous automobile failures" is a bit more manageable, don't you think? Gazpacho 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. Give a good, objective and indisputable definition of "famous" and "failure". Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although somewhat illustrative I agree with brendels assessment. One wouldn't for example write an essay about the domestic cat and call it "An essay on mammals", although that title is not essentially wrong as domestic cats are mammals, it is equally not correct as the essay is only about cats, not directly about mammals. 'A list of automotive commercial failures' isn't what the list shows. It cannot show a list of automotive commercial failures because there are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. Therefore what it shows is "A list of cars deemed by various random sources to be considered commercial failures". Consider as well some cars are hugely successful in the States but utter failures in Europe and vise versa. This is way too ambigious for me, it represents a level of information wikipedia shouldn't be hosting as wikipedia is not a vehicular review website. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm sorry-event though this article was created by respectable editors, the article currently does not cite sources and fails to deliver an at least somewhat objective definition of what a "commerical failure" is. This could hurt WP's credibility and I have put in too much effort into my article's here to let that happen. While, yes, for some cars such as the Yugo or Edsel it is clear that they were failures. It is not nearly as clear with others such as the Toyota T100 (which I think was a failure, but...). The name, "failure" also provides a problem as there is no definition for "failure." If, however, the article starts featuring sources and perhaps a name change would be initiated, I will change my vote to keep. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Quick question? What do you define as a failed automobile? I'm sorry, what? You don't have one? Goodbye.  Cdcon  19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, how cute. Do people just come to AfD to flame and score internet points now? Gazpacho 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but seriously, what's the objective criterion?  Cdcon  20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a notable failure if some impact outside the automotive hobby can be shown. Nader's activism with respect to the Corvair made his career. The Edsel has been mocked in television and film. The Tucker failure is the subject of a feature film. The Dymaxion is of interest not just to auto hobbyists, but to Fuller fans as well. Gazpacho 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said above how do you define a "notable impact oustide the automotive hobby?" Would need to find an objective criteria and rename the article correspondignly. Signature^brendel 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say "notable impact", I said "can be shown." Gazpacho 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Gazpacho, you have shot yourself in the foot actually - don't you see how laughable your argument for the Dymaxion looks like compared to the others? I, for one, never heard of the Dymaxion or Mr. Fuller (though I will gladly read about them when I finish writing this), so it is by no means famous by my standards. On the other hand, you probably never heard of the Talbot Tagora or Autobianchi Stellina, did you? This is all too subjective. Bravada, talk - 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I deliberately write comments that I know to be "laughable" all the time. Thanks for noticing. I looked through the Tagora and Stellina articles and didn't see any claim of significance outside the hobby. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's quite obvious that the Dymaxion would attract interest of Mr. Fuller's fans. If Paris Hilton somehow made a car and tried to sell it unsuccessfully, it would obviously be of notice to her fans, even if it wouldn't attract too much attention anyhow else. The Dymaxion just had the luck of being promoted by a person known for something else, but this is a rather poor claim to failure fame. And if you'd ask ME, I'd say that the Tagora was a much more spectacular and important fialure, and I believe we will never be able to convince each other on that. Which is why the article is incurable. Bravada, talk - 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ~ rather ironically, now that I know the Corvair's production numbers, its 1.8 million sales qualifies it for a place on the List of bestselling vehicle nameplates. Quite the failure it must have been to have sold so many... --DeLarge 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's unusual that a line that sold so well for many years would suddenly tank, but it did and there are bodies to prove it. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Too subjective, and apparently success in one market but failure in another still counts. Worst of all, the article doesn't even define what a "commercial failure" is, exactly. "Flop" doesn't cut it. Leave the successes/failures to the individual car articles. Come to think of it, some of the other articles in the "Commercial failures" category could stand to be removed for the same reasons. --Vossanova ^o< 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gazpacho makes some good points. And it certainly is less inherently POV than the other article (mentioned above). But to take the Yugo as an example, and as Vossanova says, was it a commercial failure in all of it's markets? (For all I know it was a big seller in Yugoslavia - where I assume it was made). If the article is market specific to the USA, then at the very least it needs to be renamed as such. Marcus22 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and for consistency between two correlating articles. I am also concerned with the issues regarding verification and POV noted above. Agent 86 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Significant changes have been made to this article since it was listed (i.e. a massive chunk has been gouged out of it) Please take another look at it and reconsider your vote. Drett 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that significant, just a huge chunk was thrown away. This doesn't pertain to the fundamental issues which are being discussed here, if it was that easy, there would be no reason for an AfD nomination in the first place, just for an extensive edit. Reasons for AfD in general cannot be remedied by simply editing the article. Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete This is a very biased article and only based on one persons point of view.Vr55

• NB: This user has 4 edits including 3 to the article in question and 1 to this AfD. Drett 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and did not even bother to sign. Suspicious, ain't it? Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, they're probably just a new user. Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I battled extensively to have this article kept in its last AfD, and it's very disheartening to see that the nominator did not mention it was nominated less than a month ago under the name "List of Automotive flops". But, without full disclosure the masses have voted delete, and this article shall perish. However if there were ever a time for a mistrial on Wikipedia, this is it. AdamBiswanger1 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: There is a process whereby deleted articles can be brought back, isn't there? Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once gone, it's nearly impossible to get back, but these guys dont' care, they want it all erased, forever and ever, no matter who they hurt. This delete business sucks big time, and there are plenty of WP who will second deleting articles they don't care about while the other people who care can't drum up support. Also a great way to torpedo editors they don't like as another wikipedia tactic. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment matador, please take a look at WP:OWN. You will see that no-one owns the article and as such people cannot be hurt by its deletion. You should not take the deletion or proposed deletion of an article personally.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment By the way, there is a lot of good information here that was never put on the main car articles, I would recommend going into the history and moving over everthing into the main articles before these good people succeed in erasing all the useful information in here so no one else will be able to enjoy it again. This may have started with an editor who found TWO entries I wrote in a "worst of list" of airplanes among other things. and suceeded in deleting the whole kit and kaboodle just to hurt me. I tried to document this on the main WP article, but got knocked out, likewise leave a comment on the process, also kicked out by someone that also does a lot of deletion. I found it almost impossible to stop an AfD once started because it's appears on a list that thousands of users look at and routinely add delete votes to. Most articles do not have enough users to counter these people who vote delete who have never even looked at the article before, but very popular similar list that can survive are all over WP, and there is no rule against such lists. It depends completely on the people who want to kick down such sandcastles, and there are lots of them on the automobile project.

This suspiciously was followed by a very similar assasination attempt on this article, and the companion successful automobile article which also suffered an undeserved death when a similar editor nominated his own edits for execution just to get at mine. He withdrew his nomination, but was renominated by another one of the auto project gang, and it's dead too. They also want to remove every toy, every car review, every mention of any TV show or movie appearance of car and anything else they can figure out how to delete within the WP rules, not to mentionally massively uncivil behavior to enforce these rules. But I'm the bad guy. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments Whilst I concur there is additional information here to other car articles. I do not feel that it is encyclopedic. This article fails because it is impossible to make an unambigious version of it. What qualifies a car as a commercial failure or success?, can a car fall into neither category? Is it's failure or sucess based on sales? safety? politics (i.e. where it was manufactured)? or a combination of these things? As a result this article is dangerous, it seeks to inform readers (themselves potential consumers) of cars which might/may have been worth avoiding. Wikipedia is not a vehicular review site. For car reviews try Autotrader.com. This article by nature is too biased and ambigious to possibly ever be of any encyclopedic value to anyone. Finally I want to say I really am sorry to those who have put a lot of effort into it, but I think looking over the AfD's the reoccuring nomination isn't a sinister attempt to destroy your efforts, but rather a genuine concern over the underlying nature of this article. Thanks for reading my 2 pence. ta. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• And a comment Here is the AfD from less than a month ago: [4] Drett 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it was remade as "automobiles that made less than 'x'", i'd be ok with that, but "commercial failures" seems rather subjective. Attic Owl 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And thus the degree to which the automobile is to be considered a failure is described beside each entry. Very subjective =bad. A bit subjective = OK AdamBiswanger1 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As requested I have looked at the previous AfD and again at the article. I can see no reason to change my vote. Sorry. (And I am neither one of the 'masses' nor part of some obscure plot!) So it's still 'Delete'. Marcus22 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This will need to be maintained, and has not been; but the examples given are notorious commercial failures - so it doesn;t seem to be that difficult. Septentrionalis 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredsat. Angus McLellan 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a valid reason for a {{unreferenced}} tag, but not for deletion. AdamBiswanger1 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but original research is a valid reason for deletion. dposse 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Horrible car sales is original research? Has no one else laughed at the demise of the Delorean or reported terrible sales figures for other cars? Is anything on the page not true, or not able to be referenced? I'm not sure what you mean by that. AdamBiswanger1 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have also just added an OR tag. I must most emphatically disagree. AdamBiswanger1 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "This Yugoslavian car was sold in the United States from 1986 to 1990, and quickly gained a reputation for being as unreliable as it was cheap" That's a "unverified claim". dposse 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• That just seems like stylistic writing gone wrong. I changed it to say that it was unreliable and cheap, and added a ref to indicate the "cheap" part of it. When I get more time I'll find more. See how finding sources and editing is better than deleting? AdamBiswanger1 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Man, have you ever heard of NPOV? Your concept for this article is a huge POV-fest. No wonder, actually, because this is more or less the only thing this article may become and ever was. Citing somebody else's POV is still POV. Saying that a vehicle is "cheap and unreliable" bacause somebody somewhere said it is not the same as saying that it has a wheelbase of 2100 mm. This is an encyclopedia! Bravada, talk - 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, I know what you are saying, but it is not POV to say that the Yugo is unreliable and cheap. It's true! Who would disagree? Are we to take all of the flavor out of the language and say "the Yugo experienced 8.2 times more structural damage per square foot than every other car in its class", or can we be so audacious as to say things like "unreliable"? I dislike value judgments, too, but only when they are likely to be contested by a reasonable person. AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) It's not about being true or not true. It's about creating a page where a group of subject would be deliberately bashed and labelled with judgements, using best possible resources. This IS wrong and does NOT belong in an encyclopedia, however true and fair you see it. One could probably find a rather large number of resources that say that the current US President is a moron or that a certain New York Senator is a fraud. I wouldn't like to see a listing of "stupid" or "fraud" politicans on Wikipedia though. Bravada, talk - 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Disclaimer - the above are not my views, and I do not intend to express my views of that kind in WP at all. Just giving examples to show how dramatically against the encyclopedic character of WP such listings are.

Oh come on. Do you not see the difference between saying that the Yugo is unreliable and saying Bush is a moron? Is it opinion that the Yugo is unreliable, or is it true? There is such thing as a gray area, and bringing an extreme example does nothing to argue my point. AdamBiswanger1 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also One would not find any reliable sources calling Bush a "moron", or anything of the like. AdamBiswanger1 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So list Yugo under "automobiles that were unreliable", previously setting indisputable, tangible and objective criteria for inclusion. You are trying to successfully agree that Yugos were cheap and unreliable, but you forget to notice how this does not automatically label them as flops. Think it over.

Also Find some reliable sources calling Yugo a flop indisputably. Bravada, talk - 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be quite right that being unreliable and cheap does not label a car as a flop, but that does not concern me. Strike it from the list.I'm arguing a much broader point. Simply because "flop" holds no specific definition does not mean that there should be no list at all-- the collective common sense of the editors supercedes the need for mathematical criteria. AdamBiswanger1 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a place where it doesn't. It is where we worship specific definitions and "mathematical criteria" ad absurdum. That's the quirky charm and indespensable characteristic of an encyclopedia. Sorry to disappoint you. Bravada, talk - 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Define Peninsula. Florida is a peninsula, Denmark is a peninsula, and India is a peninsula, right? What about the little strip of land in my creek surrounded by water on 3 sides? Is that a peninsula? Certainly not. Or is it? In that it's too ambiguous, maybe we should not have a list of Peninsulas? Or maybe the collective common sense of the editors will overpower my decision to put my creek in the article. AdamBiswanger1 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous tangential discussion. It doesn't matter how many bad reviews the Yugo received, or how many times it broke down. If it made more money than it cost to design and build, it wasn't a commercial failure. The ONLY information to be verified is cumulative revenues and development/manufacturing costs. --DeLarge 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, DeLarge. Adam, for the definition of a peninsula, see peninsula. A list of peninsulas would be fairly redundant, a category serves the purpose just as well. Besides, peninsula is not a judgemental term. Calling a strip of land a peninsula does not contain any positive or negative charge in general. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you try to make me look like an idiot, tell me where in the "peninsula" article it clears up any ambiguity. It does not, and my point remains. Also, calling Mussolini a dictator may have a negative charge amongst supporters, but that does not mean it is not true. Saying the Delorean is a flop will not have such a "charge" in anyone with common sense, and if it does, the controversy is to be explained next to the entry. Your reply is negated. AdamBiswanger1 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to do anything personal, don't ake my replies as such. I am only trying to fend off your arguments. Again, applying the quality of being a peninsula to a strip of land is quite NPOV, so that's not that much of a problem. As concerns dictators, if there is a list of them, I hope the criteria are well-defined. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while the article is POV-ish at the moment, failure is far more easy to quantify than success (I voted to delete the successful cars article). To some success is breaking even, to others, making a million. The article could be re-written to be quantifiable and is therefore worthy of survival in my opinion. Mallanox 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh is it? Please quantify failure. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Pick a benchmark: Failure to sell projected number of units, failure to recoup research and development costs, failure to attatin X amount of profit. Success depends on how greedy you are, failure is much more cut and dried. Mallanox 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria you mentioned are practically impossible to test against, as they are based on data manufacturers do not publish. Bravada, talk - 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK every public limited company is obliged to provide its accounting information for scrutiny by anyone willing to pay Companies House for the priviledge. I would imagine that at least the US, Japan and most EU countries would have similar legislation to be compliant with FATF. Research is the key, I just think that this article deserves to be given the chance to be improved. Mallanox 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can make out the profitability of a product or project with absolute certainty from publicized accounting statements, I congratulate you. This is actually more or less my specializatio nand I assure you it's somewhere between extremely hard to impossible, and I would rate individual automobile models closer to the latter end of that scale. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You will not convince me to change my stance on this article without coming up with a new argument. I realise that must be annoying, especially as you invited me to participate in the first place. I believe this to be worthy subject matter and I stand by my claim that profitability can be proved. Mallanox 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I won't, it is the inherent flaw in this whole AfD thing. I am waiting for an explanation how are you going to prove individual model profitability based on company accounting statements (excuse me for being impudent here). Responding to your arguments, I do not say that the subject isn't "worthy" - but do consider whether it is a good thing to start a list on that, or rather an article discussing it? What is annoying is only the girth of this discussion and how responding to comments became a nightmare - can't we have sections or something? Bravada, talk - 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Any car that can be verified to be called a failure by a notable source. Simple as that. Wall Street Journal. Motor Trend. Business Week. Ralph Nader. Now withdraw this silly, destructive AFD, or I'll keep you on my has-not-been-nice to me list.. --matador300 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep just like the first time --rogerd 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment can any of those voting keep address the utterly subjective nature of calling a car or manufacturer a failure? Viridae^Talk 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to sound blunt, but I've gone over it 1000 times here and here. AdamBiswanger1 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't believe it has actually been addressed. For a small car company making half a dozen might be ok, the same for GM would be diastrous. Consensus among wikipedians doesn't really get around the POV problem either, it is always going to be POV as to wether a car is a failure. Similarly you can't really rely on the manufacturer to be honest about something like this. Viridae^Talk 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Look at it this way: is "Automobile that was a commercial failure" a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia article? Of course not. I think that a list of them is, likewise, not a legitimate encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "Commercial failures in the auto industry"? See the second note at WP:LGR, which deals with this type of subject to list relationship. AdamBiswanger1 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just that it would be clear - Adam is actually the author of the essay he linked to. Bravada, talk - 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can be assured that I was not trying to hide that--even though the authorship irrelevant. The cited section of that essay explains a logical connection between "List of automobiles that were commercial failures" and "Commercial failures in the auto industry. It was far from an attempt at imposing the proposal on anyone else, or presenting it as authoritative. But The Literate Engineer presented the same exact idea which is the centerpiece of my essay, so I see no reason for conflict. AdamBiswanger1 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I don't think "obviously and self-evidently related" cuts it. When dealing with a list, I see it as a double question: 1, Does the topic merit a regular article to begin with? 2, Does the topic merit a list in addition to a regular article? And in the case of "Commercial failures in the auto industry", I answer question 1 with "no", which makes question 2 irrelevant. However, just because a topic merits an article, it does not necessarily follow that the identical topic merits a list. A mere "logical connection", then, is far from sufficient. My opinion regarding the final disposition of the entry remains unchanged. The Literate Engineer 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Many of these failures are notable and encylopedic. The fact that a list is not being maintained is not listed as a reason to delete anything. Also, I'm not sure that there have been that many notable failures of late. We as a community have decided that we support lists like this with Category:Commercial failure lists. Vegaswikian 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - of course some failures were notable and encyclopedic, but how do you define notability, not to mention failure (which we already discussed above)? If an automobile is said to have failed in the marketplace for this reason or another, and it is notable, it should go into its article with appropriate references. A list should have very specific criteria for inclusion, otherwise it is going to be unstable. Moreover, including an item in such a list applies a negative quality to it, which is a fantastic decoy for all POV-lovers. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (User apparently believes he's entitled to multiple votes) Hey, Bravada, there's another wikipage for you to delete! It's all my fault, I admit it. I wrote an entry on the F-111 tha Mmx1 didn't like and a mirror page of successful scientific projects, and he found out how easy it is to delete these things unless you have a base large enough to beat the traffic of people more than happy to 2nd a nomination for deletion, the contribution history of many of these people consists largely of deletions, instead of editors like myself that contribute heavily, despite the heavy efforts of delete-happy editors who I shall not name here, but many of them have signed here. It seems suspicious that so many copycat deletions have since taken place. The ONLY valid reason for deletion is if NOTHING can be salvaged, no matter how many so-called votes have been cast. You cannot vote on the value of PI, as my math teacher said, and it only takes one person to be right (I just made that up) The good guys need to fight exclusionists like Bravada that currently dominate and bully other editors in the Automobile project. Just try to put upa picture or mere mention a model of a car or say that it was on Adam-12 and try to make it stick without gettting disembowled, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. I did (and actualy suceeded in getting pictures of model cars and mentions of cars on Adam-12, and lived to tell about it) Wikipeople should concentrate on building this baby up instead of tearing down each other's work! (patriotic music playing in the background) Remember, the good guys always win in the end. See my talk page for my dream speech. --matador300 21:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though you believe the world revolves around you, this AfD has nothing to do with you or any other specific editors. By definition, it should be and is impersonal. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Answer me this. Were you or were you not inspired by the AfD described by Mmx's dossier on our interactions, since you seem to have famiarised yourself with this history? I would certainly describe your tactics as very similar to those employed by that editor.--matador300 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The only thing I know about Mmx is that this is some user you have clashes with regarding some aircraft. I don't know of any dossier and I am not interested with your aircraft business at all. This AfD was inspired by a parallel AfD regarding a parallel list, as said in the introduction - if we deleted one, it would be totally inconsistent if we didn't delete the other. Itnerestingly, some people voted differently in the two AfDs! Bravada, talk - 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and POV article aim. What a bloody mess of comments. A list of problems warranting deletion is not exclusionary - it does not mean there are no other criteria for deletion. --Mmx1 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, trivial and a waste of time. I strongly object to the user's attempt to make it too much effort for people to participate and suggest that all his complaints are completely invalid and should be totally ignored. Piccadilly 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep conditional on an objective definition of commercial failure. The deLorean and Edsel were unquestionably failures, by common ocnsent. The subject of cars which failed commercially is encyclopaedic. As long as the judgment of commercial failure can be attributed to named and authoritative sources, there should be no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? Please see the above discussion - all objective definitions of commercial failure proposed proved either impossible to apply or not applicable (did not equal commercial failure). How in the world are you going to OBJECTIVELY name "authoritative" sources? Again, if there is "common consent" that something was a failure, it's a reason to mention that in the article, but one cannot start a list based on that! Bravada, talk - 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Listed in a book of automotive failures, for one thing. Like I said, the underlying topic is encyclopaedic, and with care and sourcing the list can be too. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can write a book of automotive failures and argue that DeLorean was a great success that was ahead of its time and moved the automotive industry forward by aeons, while at the same time arguing why the Toyota Corolla is an utter failure. And if you think this is irrelevant, I assure you people write such things. So, does every car mentioned as a failure in a source have a place here? Bravada, talk - 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a publisher. People will laugh in your face, of course... To describe the deLorean and Edsel as failures is entirely uncontroversial, there is broad agreement in a large number of sources. We can debate the appropriateness of individual models one by one, but the subject is encyclopaedic and the list is capable of being referenced to reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go and browse some stuff that gets published. Start with reading what Jerry Flint writes, he sometimes even claims an existing model does not exist, not to mention that you can reference contradictory statements from his different "works", as he changes his mind quite often. Anyway, do you realize you have just expressed POV? Referencing to POV is still POV, it is just finding somebody's POV good, and thus it is POV :D What are your precise criteria for "broad agreement in a large number of sources"? Bravada, talk - 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read the policies and guidelines. As long as we can attribute to a known identified authority such as a motoring journalist or team of journalist (as would be the case with a book published by a car magazine) then it's not POV and it's not OR. If there is significant informed dissent, or the issue is complex (as with the Corvair and Nader) we can cover it by reference to both sides. But there are cars which are identified by multiple sources as duds, and there ios nothing wrong with listing them - either as a separate article or if there are only a few after the fact-checking then in an article on automotive duds. Sure, some people love their Edsels, but in the end there is no significant informed dissent from "the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time" analysis. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

POV aside for 5 seconds, It still qualifies for deletion as it violates the WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information such as reviews. Because this is so subjective its basically a list of bad car reviews. If you want to read car review go to autotrader.com, Wikipedia is not the correct place for this information. It should be removed as quickly as possible, I'm amazed the article has made it this far. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) OK, we can argue about that forever, but tell me why do you want to keep a "List of automobiles some sources users considered 'identfied authorities' declared to be 'duds' (even though it does not equal being a commercial failure, as a commercial failure is a product that did to live up to sales/financial projections)" in an encyclopedia, especially that the corresponding list of successful automobiles (for which all the raised arguments apply) was unanimously deleted? I believe a list should be an expection in WP, used in cases when it can add valuable information that cannot be presented in any other form - like List of largest suspension bridges. Please do not reply at once, think it over and perhaps reply tommorrow. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unencyclopedic, biased, vanal and totally clueless regarding the Yugo. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with DeLarge. —ptk✰fgs 12:30, 12 August 2006 (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.