Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobile model and marque oddities (3rd 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. One of the two keep !voters argues that this shuld be kept under IAR, if nothing else. I don't find that a reason to keep this article, and consensus is that it fails several other policies. Courcelles 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model and marque oddities[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion a couple of times in 2006, but there are still serious issues here. The list lacks well-defined criteria, what is "oddity" supposed to mean? The article is unsourced, and has been unsourced for four years. The entire article seems to be a list of trivia which lacks focus. Without any sourcing, it is likely original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I remember voting to keep this in the first 2006 discussion (gosh, almost four years ago to the day), but to be honest the nominator is right in saying that it hasn't really improved; is just an uncited collection of trivia and coincidences. Shame really, as it's quite interesting in places. As before, my only other suggestion would be to split the article into more managable, verifiable sections (I can imagine an article on "List of racing homologation specials" being quite useful, for example). Bob talk 13:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete as a collection of trivia and bland statements of the obvious ("It is common for a previous special model (especially a convertible or other low-volume style) to continue in production even after the rest of the line has been converted to a new platform"). Does it have an encyclopedic value of it's own? East of Borschov 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this article, it is way hard to improve it anyway. If the content is verifiable keep it. The list based articles doesn't need references, since the wikilinks has references themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs)
Notify related wiki projects and page contributors I also suggest the nominator to exclusively notify related automobile channels and page contributors about AFD, since their expert views are much more important for the article. Kasaalan (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a list comprised entirely of trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. There's also a foul smell of original research permeating throughout the list and it's inclusion criteria are poorly defined. What qualifies an "oddity"? All this points to a major violation of WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix | Talk 16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its apparently a compilation of material from the various specific pages, and useful as a summary. But our standards for this type of have improved & exact sources are needed. A useful compilation, and probably worth keeping ,even if IAR is the necessary argument DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (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.