Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand)

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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Article subject does not pass WP:CORP, particularly the requirement that "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Company is a small kit car manufacturer. The coverage is from specialist kit car magazines only. Article was declined at AfC on this basis but, rather than improve the article, the author proceeded to vigorously canvas various editors until they found one who would move it to mainspace. Sionk (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in WP:RS. If WP:RS sources are added, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments, however in the context of the Wiki Cars project, and in a New Zealand context the company is significant. The kit car publications you call "specialist magazines" are international publications in most cases and no less notable than most used in Wiki. Also, you say I "vigorously canvas various editors until they found one who would move it to mainspace". If seeking advice on the article and the references used from a (single/one only!!!) fellow Wikipeadian within a project can hardly be termed "vigorous canvasing". Also Sionk I posted this comment your page in January and never heard any more, so I resubmitted the article.

"have been on a rather long excursion through the guidelines - at best I would describe them as vague and at worst confusing relating to Notability. Given the pages of discussion on Notability and the meaning of "limited interest and circulation" I can only conclude that it seems to become a matter of opinion as to whether a kitcar magazine constitutes a publication of limited interest and circulation - not helpful to either of us. I therefore turned my attention to other Notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) and Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), the latter being an essay rather than a guideline. These seem to show a split in the way Wikipedians view notability. As a sweeping generality (please excuse me for this) those from a scientific/literary viewpoint seem to prefer to limit what is notable in their field, while those from mechanical/technological one seem to want to include more. From my personal preference, I tend to lean towards the latter and I think that would be similar for those on theWiki Automobile project - the projects stated aim is to "co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobiles, automotive parts and technology of the automotive industry". A troll through the various autombile and aircraft pages shows some very obscure types, which in themselves must be of limited interest even from my viewpoint. So despite my best efforts I don't think I have resolved much more than to agree to disagree. Let me know if you have any suggest/thoughts on the matter as I am quite interested. NealeFamily (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"

So before you jump please read and consider as it affects us all. NealeFamily (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came here from WikiProject New Zealand and have lived in New Zealand for most of life. In response to ...in a New Zealand context the company is significant. I can confirm that I'd never heard of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry Stuart, I may have slightly misled you - I should have said in terms of kit car manufacturers in New Zealand they are significant. You'll find their cars regularly listed on Trade Me and represented at various local car shows. They are internationally known as is illustrated by the assorted kit car publications running articles on them. The company is also international with Alternative Cars (Australia) Pty, and Alternative Cars International Ltd, which I believe is based in the UK. You should be able to confirm this with a quick web search. I have also added a recently published book on the New Zealand industry as a reference to the article.

As I stated in my comments back Soink, when I originally submitted the article, I found the definition of notability vague in the context of motor vehicles. My discussion above explored that issue and I sought but did not get any comment from Soink. With regard to the references I orginally used, I asked a (one) member of the Automobile project for guidance on whether or not the publications I was using were within Wiki's criteria - they thought they were. I have therefore put the references issue to the Automobile project for comment because I want to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia, not because I have any particular hidden agenda or because I am somehow trying to drum up support. I respect both Soink and your comments, but I may not fully agree with them. NealeFamily (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self-promotional/COI. lacks independent news coverage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Questions (1) Since the consensus here is to delete has WP:Notability (vehicles) been considered? (2) If articles in independent magazines published in three different countries and at least one is recognized in its field, plus a book are not reliable sources then what are (because to meet the Notability criteria for vehicles, I needed to establish the types existence and validity)? (3) If the article is to be deleted can it be returned to user space instead?NealeFamily (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) And a PS I have no vested interest in Alternative Cars, I was simply seeking to ensure all NZ car makers are included in Wiki in some form or other. If you think WP:COI has been breached I'm happy for the article to be edited to make sure it isn't. I dislike adverts and support the communities efforts to maintain Wiki's integrity, I also appreciate those of you who take the time to critique.[reply]

Keep coverage in 3 different (admittedly specialist) publications from 3 different countries seems enough to establish notability to me. Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a vehicle, it is about a kit car manufacturer. WP:Notability (vehicles) wouldn't apply. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - how about if I rename the article "Alternative Cars (New Zealand)" and refocus it on the make?NealeFamily (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that it is close enough to notability to be worth keeping. Okay that's a weak argument I know, so let's call this an IAR play. New Zealand is one of the smallest English speaking nations and therefore New Zealand based corporations will have significantly less coverage in comparison to a US or UK corporation of similar proportionate scale within the economy. Within the context of the size of the New Zealand print media that we use to seek out references I feel this passes the threshold and should be kept. If there were nation based Wikipedia's this would pass the text for nz.wikipedia QU ^TalkQu 18:11, 13 March 2012 (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.