Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMW Z2

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. If someone wants to redirect them they could. Wizardman 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Z2[edit]

All articles listed here are about products that do not exist, nor have they been formally announced. All info in these articles are based solely on editor speculation and some very minor automotive media outlet speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. roguegeek (talk·cont) 08:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons listed above. All articles are unreferenced and based purely on editor speculation. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.:

Delete The car is real but its still in the planning stage. This is all crytal ball matters at present and 2010 is 2 years away. One can't base an article on rumours Artene50 (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree about WP:CRYSTAL in general, but it is not a bar to articles about future events or products when there is sufficient information to write an article. For the BMW Z10 (the only one I had time to look at, no opinion as to the others) I quickly found two new sources, and fixed the link on a third one that was in the markup language, but wasn't showing up. I think they provide a reasonable basis for a stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a major contributor to those articles, you agree that it does violate WP:CRYSTAL. That's grounds enough for the delete. I think the bottom line is nothing listed above has been formally announced and all articles have little to no references. And any minor references that are provided clearly state it's speculation. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not exactly. First, I'm not sure that my two edits to add references makes me a major contributor to the article :) Second, I do not think that WP:CRYSTAL is violated here, rather I agree that as a general rule we should avoid having articles when there is nothing to say that is not speculative. In this particular case (that is, the one article I actually commented upon), I think that there are reliable sources that we can use to create a stub, noting that the vehicle is planned, but not yet released. I do see that reasonable minds can differ here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not crystal ball. BMW Z1 is succeded for Z3, Z3 to Z4, and Z4 to... Z2? No Z5? If the BMW is not more interesting in compact roadsters? I can't see any reason for keeping this article. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete. I agree about deleting the pages for the speculative models (the Z2, X1, Z10, etc.), but I want to disagree on the specific case of the BMW F10. The F10 is the platform code for the next-gen 5-Series, and that is under testing, has been seen many times, and is not a secret at all, any more than the Boeing 747-8 is a speculative venture. Granted, formal specifications have not been released for the next-gen 5-Series, but of course it's coming, and coming soon. It's been seen repeatedly on test tracks, and every article I've read says that it will be out as a '10 model. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." While a new type of BMW sport-utility may happen (the projected BMW X7 was just cancelled last week), a redesigned 5-Series almost certainly will happen. Here's an article about it from Britain's Car magazine.[1] Although speculative, it does discuss a "development [that] will occur." Sacxpert (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that there's enough info out there on the F10 front that makes me believe it exists in some form or another, but I still don't think it should be exempt from deletion because the info is still speculation until a formal announcement. Although unlikely, what if the chassis designation is announced and it's called something other than F10? Well then the encyclopedic value of the info in the article is, well, non-encyclopedic and false. The article in whole is still clearly breaking the WP:CRYSTAL policy. Specifically with the F10 article, though, it doesn't state a single source, speculative or not. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Car article offered a good estimation of what will be coming on the 5-Series; you could easily find articles from other mags and blogs that would have similar details. If you added those sources, then the article makes some sense. Plus, let's face it: if we delete the article today, we'll just have to re-add it in about 6 months, when the details and press release start leaking early before the car's unveiling. Seems kinda silly to bother to me. The car will apparently be called the F10 chassis, from all named reports. If for some reason it's not, we can rename it. I know that this one is right on the edge of violation CRYSTAL, but as I quoted from the policy, "It is appropriate to report...whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Let's find some sourcing (I found one already), add it, and keep that article. Sacxpert (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. A compromise, then, would be to redirect the articles to the most appropriate article for each. It's the same compromise we did for the Nissan 370Z. Everyone knows it's coming out, but there is no formal announcement yet so it was redirected to the Nissan 350Z article instead. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:03, 11 August 2008 (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.