Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the car

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of the car

Future of the car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is almost entirely unsourced speculation about the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) *Delete. Agree with nomination, plus this is original research. Trebor 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing to weak keep per below. It's an offshoot of a large page and, with a lot of care, could probably be written in a NPOV NOR manner. Definite cleanup needed, and I'm not even sure it has the right title (as an offshoot of Automobile, surely it should at least be Future of the automobile?). Trebor 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - It's not really OR; there's a little OR in the context, but the bulk of the article is links to other WP entries for future car technologies, which are not OR. It's not OR for an author to group those technologies together. It's really badly written, and the comments need cleanup for ORness, but the underlying info is ok. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per above. OR is for material an editor invented themselves. The only entries that should be removed are entries that we can't find sources for. If there's an appropriate article this should be merged with, we can consider it. But it's fine to have a section, or a page, which outlines published theories about future car technologies. Quack 688 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak listify This article's almost a list already; List of future vehicle technologies (it needs a better name than that) would probably better than what we have at the moment, but I'm not sure. --ais523 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and rewrite if there's no usable material, otherwise Purge, source and rewrite due to crystal-ballery and original research. None of the claims that this-or-that technology will/may be used is backed up by citations from reliable sources. Moreover, the synthesis of these various bits of info to advance the claim that "these technologies represent the future of the car" is an OR claim unless backed up. Zunaid©Review me! 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that Future of the car is a sub-article of Automobile - i.e. the automobile article has a brief description of future technologies, but relies on this off-shoot for more detailed information. I agree that this article needs more sourcing, but I still don't think what it's crystal-ballery or OR. Crystal-ballery would be, "The technology that's probably going to be adapted is X". OR would be, "There's also this theory I thought up in science class where you...". The article doesn't have to speculate what the next step in the car's evolution will actually be - it just has to outline the technological alternatives in a NPOV manner. Quack 688 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Outlining technologies is fine, that's mere secondary research from primary sources. However, advancing the claim that these technologies are going to be used, or even "may" be used as future technology in a car is a claim that needs strong backing and citations for each and every technology presented in the article. Without such, it is OR. That said, as a sub-article of Automobile it is quite vital to the completeness of the main article. I've changed my !vote as a result. Zunaid©Review me! 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per above. This is a useful article, even if it is a work in progress. -- Ssilvers 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs some structure, but very useful in connecting the threads of other articles. Authors should follow NPOV and not promote or debate any of the concepts, or predict success/failure. --Dlatimer 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Clear Delete as crystal-balling. Didn't we have this discussion just before Christmas , or was it the future of transport more generally ? WMMartin 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As WMMartin says, this is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically 'Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.' —David Eppstein 03:28, 13 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.