Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prestige vehicles

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 as essentially original research, though an encyclopedic article on the topic might be possible. Opabinia regalis 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prestige vehicles

Prestige vehicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Expired prod. The content is a bit extensive and seems to be well-referenced so I felt it deserved an AFD. Just listing here, No Opinion from me Srikeit 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned that while the vehicles themselves appear well-referenced the basis of the article, that Prestige cars are vehicles that enjoy a high degree of esteem among the public, due to their high price and styling., appears to be OR and POV, with litle or no attempt to source the statement, define "high price" or mention which "public" this is. It's also geographically-biassed; a "prestige vehicle" in Burkina Faso (GDP per capita income, $1,300) is unlikely to be one of those listed on the page. I realise that POV and apparent geo-bias are not bases for deletion, but OR is. Weak delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading it does state There is ..., no objective guideline as to what constitutes prestige on how to determine whether or not a veicle has prestige. The best indicators are press releases, the usage of the term luxury car, and the manner in which automobile manufacturers sell their cars. I still make that OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Well the article clearly states that there is no definition of high price. A vehicle might have prestige in the eyes of some, but not in the eyes of others- some consider a BMW 3-Series to have prestige-others don't. Everybody has a slightly different definition. We should not delete this article as prestige vehicles do exsist and the concept is quite prominent in western society. Prestige cars do exsist, thus an article making note of their exsistence isn't OR. The statements themselves aren't exactely OR either- they come from reviews and lifestyle columns in magazines such as Forbes. If you'd like I can add some in-line citations. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the whole concept here is original research and a list of vehicles based on undefined, non-objective criteria. There are no reliable sources in this article that qualify the term, nor are their sources for the "criteria" discussed, nor for the list of so-called "prestige" vehicles. The only way this would be reliably sourced would be if this was a direct list of http://www.prestigecars.de/, which actually does show a list of "prestige cars". That is not exactly a suitable reliable source to base a whole article on though.--Isotope23 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The concept is not OR. Prestige cars do exsist. Why do you think people spent $52,000 on a Hummer? Because it has prestige. Perhaps the format of the article needs to be changed, but concept does undoubtely exsist. Yes, this is a subjective concept for which there are no objective guidelines and sources but only lifestyle columns to cite. Should we delete this article just becuase it isn't of scientific but highly subjective nature. Prestige cars play a big part in the day to day lives of millions of people around the globe (I admit mostly in developed countries); thus it is our obligation to make note of this phenomenon. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but where are the reliable sources and verification of this concept of "prestige vehicles" as you've stated? Here are just a couple of the statements that I'd consider original research because they are in no way sourced and appear to reflect "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position":

• "Prestige cars are vehicles that enjoy a high degree of esteem among the public, due to their high price and styling." Where is this definition from?
• "The only attribute common among prestige vehicles are their relatively high price and often sophisticated quality as well as the high amount of esteem they enjoy and project upon the owner." Again, where is any sourcing that states these attributes constitute a "prestige vehicle"?
• "The best indicators are press releases, the usage of the term luxury car, and the manner in which automobile manufacturers sell their cars. Prestige vehicles will usually have marketing hinting at their esteemed position within the automobile market." According to whom?
• "Some vehicles carry high MSRPs as well as a high amount of esteem among the public, yet fail to meet the comfort requirements of a proper luxury vehicles. The cars tend to be performance or utility oriented." Again, where is the source for this statement? Where is it defined that these vehicles are not "prestige"?
• "The Hummer H1 is another example of a non-luxury prestige vehicle. The H1 enjoys a large amount of esteem among the public due to its $100k+ price tag" where is the sourcing that proved the H1 is esteemed by the public due to it's price tag?

I could go on, but the point is that most of this article is WP:OR. You could change the format of the article, but it wouldn't change the fact that this is an unsubstantiated essay on the concept of "prestige vehicles". You could removed all the unsourced statements, but as I stated above, you'd have no article... just a list of the vehicles at http://www.prestigecars.de/, which is the only thing that is sourced (though I'm not sure this would support an article as an absolutly reliable source. It is only our obligation to make note of this phenomenon if it can be verifiably sourced that this phenomenon exists and right now that is simply not the case with this article.--Isotope23 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well we could cut this article down to a mere paragraph and merge it into the status symbol article. But we need to mention this concept. Do we also need a source for stating that on a sunny day the sun shines? The exsistance of prestige vehicles is obvious. That said, this article was written when referencing criteria were a bit more lax and thus much of it is lacking references. So we could trim this article down to a section and merge it into the Status symbol article. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the sunny day question as rhetorical and simply state there is an obvious difference between your example and what is stated in this article. Nontheless, I don't have a problem with merging mention of this concept to Status symbol, but any merged text should still include some sort of rudimentary sourcing on the topic to, at the very least, establish what constitutes a "prestige vehicle". I don't think the concept is so obvious as to render sourcing unnecessary (as with your sunny day example).--Isotope23 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then we need to agree to diagree on the sunny day example (Yes it was rhetorical). We all know that there's a difference in our apperance when we dicide to drive down Main street in a S500 versus a Kia Rio. The former one has prestige which is abvious to onlookers-but that aside. I think the source in the article currently are sufficient to support a small section in the Status symbol. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Certainly a valid topic, but not sure this is the right article title and could use NPOVing in line with the use of legitimate sources, which would also solve the OR problem. metaspheres 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with status symbol. This article is full of original research. The passing mention of the concept in status symbol is probably enough, although it would nice if it were referenced. -- Alan McBeth 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, unverifiable original research. Valrith 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV. Vegaswikian 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tonywalton's comments. WMMartin 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above points. Sharkface217 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete POV of original research. Mukadderat 02:24, 3 December 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.