Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acabion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:49Z
[edit] Acabion
This is a concept vehicle from a company that is not notable for anything else. It makes incredible claims with tons of marketing speak and is written almost entirely by one person, whose comments on uploaded pictures appear to me to imply that he's one of the two designers of the vehicle. It's being used as a platform for advertising. Please check the history to see the version before I started trying to clean it up. Not notable, advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I agree with TomTheHand, more sources backing up some of the outlandish claims need to be provided, perhaps some reputable news source has done a story on this vehicle. Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I apologize I spoke much too soon a quick Google search turns up many independent and reputable sources. However the ad like tone in the article must be toned down. Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- The sources in question are just coverage of the claims made. A concept appeared at the 2006 Geneva auto show and there was a flurry of press because of the claims made, much like what happened with the Barabus TKR (successful AFD here). I see this AFD as essentially identical to that one: an unknown company brings a concept car to an auto show, claims it'll be the fastest thing ever, and gets drowned in press coverage. However, there's no actual product, at least not yet. This vehicle deserves an article when it actually exists; right now it's just hype and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Even if it is a concept it is still a development which has received attention from a number of reputable sources.
- The sources in question are just coverage of the claims made. A concept appeared at the 2006 Geneva auto show and there was a flurry of press because of the claims made, much like what happened with the Barabus TKR (successful AFD here). I see this AFD as essentially identical to that one: an unknown company brings a concept car to an auto show, claims it'll be the fastest thing ever, and gets drowned in press coverage. However, there's no actual product, at least not yet. This vehicle deserves an article when it actually exists; right now it's just hype and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I apologize I spoke much too soon a quick Google search turns up many independent and reputable sources. However the ad like tone in the article must be toned down. Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see why concept cars are not appropriate for wikipedia especially if it is made clear that they are in fact concept cars and their performance claims are not substantiated. The Acabion appears to be a notable concept car. I've whittled down the page to the bear facts and it looks ok to me. More discussion and edits may be required. Daniel J. Leivick 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Daniel J. Leivick. The article needs tidying though. Ford MF 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP: I work with the Speed Record Club, and it is my opinion that the inclusion of the Acabion is valid for the encyclopedia. I have tested the machine from an unbiased point of view, and have found Dr Maskus to be intelligent, knowledgeable and polite. The Acabion is his vision of the future, and this vehicle, in the same way as the Peraves project, is an important step in the development of environmentally friendly travel. Just because it is not well known yet is not a valid reason to delete it from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttley (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, following Daniel's cleanup of the page. Feezo (Talk) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (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.
