Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of economical cars

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of economical cars

adding Historical comparison of economy cars 2006 to the nomination as the original article has been copied and pasted there.

Unencyclopedic buyer's guide, see WP:NOT. AKADriver 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is the type of thing which we would expect to see in an auto magazine, not an encyclopedia. The cars chosen appears to be entirely arbitrary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  The cars chosen are popular cars. And expect other cars to be added. Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. Lundse 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Is there an accepted definition of encyclopedic somewhere? The article is informative and good for people doing research on such things. Daniel.Cardenas 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  What "per nom" are you talking about. Its verifiable, npov, and no copyright infringments. Daniel.Cardenas 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Renamed to Historical comparison of economy cars 2006. Please compare with: History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)
  • The video game console article (which is pretty good) lists three consoles which make up pretty much the entire market for these products and includes some description about them in general. This car article however just picks three cars which make up only a fraction of the economy car market. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    I doubt you would have considered the early version of the game console article very good[1]. Perhaps you want to give this article time to mature.

    But to where could it mature? It will never be anything but a comparison. If you'd like to see it take on some real context, try merging it with Economy car. The video game article as it exists now could stand on its own without that comparison table. AKADriver

    A representative sample would be sufficient to help researchers understand what options were available in a time of concerns over global warming and smog. Daniel.Cardenas 02:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Who decides what's representative, without adding a biased POV and original research? Someone doing this type of research would be far better served by primary or secondary sources (such as automotive publications or the manufacturers themselves). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It's a quick reference, a digest, not a source for serious research. AKADriver 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'll add more cars if that is what you think will make a difference. I was thinking about adding the Toyota Corolla. I was hoping other people would add cars when it became more popular. Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • See my comments re: the video game article on this article's talk page. Also, if you wish to move an article, don't just create a duplicate under another name. Try moving it using the instructions at Help:Moving a page. Don't forget to make sure this AfD discussion still points to this article. AKADriver 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think I may have stumbled over a debate that's grumbled on for a long time - whether comparisons can be encyclopedic. Some users have even left the project agonizing over this question. Personally, I'm with that guy - unless there's a large amount of non-comparison context for it, such as the 7th gen game console article, or the comparative lists of weapons used on either side of the Seven-Year War. Comparisons are somewhere in the grey area between encyclopedic knowledge, original research, and how-to guide. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that, whether intentional or not, this article reads like a buyer's guide (which is implicitly verboten in WP:NOT as a form of how-to) and contains the author's original research (his definitions of an "economical car" or "hybrid body design"). AKADriver 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it does not belong, it might be able to if it included someting approaching all relevant cars, which it never can. Comparisons should be used to sum up an (in itself) encyclopedic article, not stand by themselves. Lundse 12:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article can only be original research. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  There are plenty of sources cited. Do you want more? Citing sources is contrary to original research. Daniel.Cardenas 02:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. If data from existing sources are synthesized in such a way as to create a novel idea, that's original research. While this article doesn't attempt to draw a conclusion, and the vehicle data is factual, the comparison itself is novel and therefore original research. AKADriver 15:28, 24 April 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.