Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Note that subsequent comments suggest lack of SIGCOV. Did you see anything that you consider meeting SIGCOV in the sources you checked? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have copies of Bentley's books, but the fact that the article at hand at the time of nomination cites pages 21 and 53 of the 2001 one and pages 81, 163–164, and 196–197 of the 2017 one indicates that it isn't just mentioning the subject in passing. The Amberley book gives the toy form just under a page of prose followed by another half page of captioned pictures. The August 2006 PC Magazine cited in the article is indeed that whole page and directly about the relevant computer kit. I don't have a copy of the Fryer book ISBN 9781781555040 which calls it a "Spectrum SPV", which is RAS syndrome.
    One telling source is the Haynes Manual Captain Scarlet Spectrum Agents' Manual already cited at the time of nomination which treats the subject in detail and with the taking-non-cars-seriously approach of the the Haynes series according to every blurb and review that I can find. One describes that book as having "fully annotated cutaway drawings of Spectrum vehicles", and that seems to agree with the article at hand citing 6 pages of it, which some copyright violators on Pinterest hint to be several 2-page spreads with prose.
    The reason that I suspect there to be many contemporary sources, difficult to find in the (ahem!) 21 century, is that in my own second-hand book collection there is a 1967 Captain Scarlet Annual, which has a 2-page annotated spread on pages 50–51, although with no production information; and that didn't turn up in any catalogue search that I did.
    Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Coverage isn't much more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: I agree with nom that the sources are trivial, but I definitely think it could be salvaged. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since nomination, the over-long "appearances" section has been removed and the rest of the content expanded. I have most of the cited books. Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book, the Anderson biography and 21st Century Visions, which together discuss the more unusual design aspects (e.g. the reversed seating) across several pages. Hardly trivial or passing mentions. The topic is also significant commercially, with a large number of toys and models through the decades, which have been discussed directly and in detail by multiple print sources (from Meccano Magazine in the '60s, to the Burman book linked by User:Uncle G, to the recent reviews in Diecast Collector). Sources are clear that this was one of the all-time best-selling diecasts, at least in the UK, and certainly Dinky's most successful product. Additionally, there is demonstrable cultural impact from the Scott coverage, which was picked up by Motorsport Network and Boing Boing (and with ~ 8 million subscribers / 2 billion views, is Scott really a "minor" YouTuber?) – plus the LaCie coverage, Andrew English in The Daily Telegraph and some pretty deep stuff from Mark Bould, a published academic. When all these elements are taken together, the topic passes the GNG. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 02:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperMarioMan I do appreciate you working on this, but hmmm. You say "Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book", but the description I see of that book (I am unable to locate it for browsing - if you have a link, please share) suggests it is a plot summary; and indeed in our article it only cited for in-universe info (stats - speed, engine, etc.). By "the Anderson biography" I assume you mean The Authorised Biography of Gerry Anderson? We use it for a few quotations from the show creator about it; sadly, I cannot find that book to browse online either. I am concerned it fails the independent requirement - the show creator (effectively, the vehicle creator) talks about it, for what I assume are a few paragraphs in his biography - but who else does so at length? Ditto for 21st Century Visions, as it is a book by the other designer of this vehicle ("The SPV was designed by special effects director Derek Meddings based on a brief description given in the Andersons' original script for the first episode" - as our article says). I am concerned that this is borderline not enough. I'll ping User:Daranios and User:TompaDompa who have good track of reviewing such content and sources and who may be able to say more (and I'll note that Uncle G already pinged by you found some other sources that may or may not be relevant). This might be saved, but looking at the article's reception, I still fear we are just cobbling together mentions in passing from here and there. That has not been enough to save fiction-themed articles in the past (having said all of that, I certainly see there's a lot of useful content here for merging somewhere...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact contents of the Boxtree book escape me, but I do know that it goes into the minutiae of the vehicle. The Anderson biography is not just Anderson's comments; author Hearn talks about the commercialisation and toy design process (that part is not yet in the toys section). The toys section already cites non-trivial (several paragraphs to full page length) write-ups in print media. The reception section includes the vehicle inspiring a YT experiment (which other media then commented on); the vehicle providing the lead-in to a national newspaper preview of a real-life vehicle; and multi-page discussion from an academic, relating to the design aspects discussed further up the article. To consider all of this only "passing" coverage relies on a very broad definition of the term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review additions provided since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the referenced article content and the sources found by SuperMarioMan. This might not be the most well-covered subject, but what we have in my view is enough to fullfill WP:ALLPLOT, WP:WHYN and therefore WP:GNG. And it's enough in volume that this seems better as a separate article as opposed to a section in Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons with regard to WP:PAGEDECIDE; the latter would still be clearly preferable to deletion, as we just do have encyclopedic content, most notable in the Bould source. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]