Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare automotive features

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rare automotive features

Rare automotive features (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Very subjective criteria. If the list includes aftermarket modifications, it's potentially limitless (eg.someone can glue an eggbeater to their windshield and have it recognized as rare). --Interiot 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete — despite having just done a cleanup of the article! I was considering nominating it here and Interiot has made the decision for me! ;-) Editors may wish to check out the article's talk page for a description of why the article was created, and it seems like a noble, but inappropriate, motivation. The article isn't just potentially limitless and subjective; it's also likely to be PoV and wrong from time to time, on the basis that it's likely to be hard to prove that some feature or other is considered rare everywhere in the world. If the article is kept, the word "rare" will have to be better defined. – Kieran T (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - delete as an overly subjective and unmaintainable list. -- MarcoTolo 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Way too subjective to be properly maintained. Someone could easily refer to an obscure feature as a 'rare feature', regardless of the feature's notability; I could easily envision this list blowing up in size if it were left. Kyra~(talk) 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the page's discussion
Reason this page created - some automotive designs and accessories disappear and are generally forgotten or are completely unknown to younger generations. Many such features may have been been individually desirable but not as parts of packages. Others have become obsolete as they have been superceded by newer technology. While there might be some description of some items on other pages, this page could be a bit more like an endangered and extinct species page.
Usefulness
This is the automotive technology equivalent of "evolutionary dead ends or side streets." Curious and interesting. Should be expanded with photographs.
157.128.148.150 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Where else would we find this information?
Do not delete!
  • Delete There is no assertion of "rare." Woodgrain paneling is listed. What? That stuff was EVERYWHERE. The list is too subjective and blatant OR. --Sable232 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be original research based on extremely subjective criteria. BlankVerse 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR, will only lead to endless arguments and an incomplete un-professional list of editor POVs. Signaturebrendel 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete full of original research and isn't well defined. Would an odd part on every toyota carolla be rare if it's the only model that has it but sells 20 million? Too subjective. James086Talk 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is on too trivial a topic. Karrmann 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:V. You can create articles on the individual features if they don't already exist (e.g. suicide doors), if you think they need "preserved". The problem with the page is the listcruftiness of it, not the merits of individual entries. Although, on the subject of wood panelling, I think the author means the external panelling seen on old wagons, not woodgrain appliqués on the dash and door trim. --DeLarge 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I created the page however after reading the discussion above have to agree that it was misguided. My aim was to gather some of the more creative and often practical but generally unknown designs used in the industry (yes all highly subjective terms). Moreover, I have to admit my original use of "obsolete" is much like "extinct" - again subjective - white swan thinking. User: Albertasunwapta
  • Delete Well, I'm back but waffling a bit on the whole "subjective" thing. I stumbled across a Wikipedia page on Death by natural causes - now that's subjective. Oh well, feel free to wipe this one out. User: Albertasunwapta
    • "Death by natural causes" isn't necessarily precise, but it's a term of art used by emergency responders and statisticians, it has something of an understood meaning that's used in government publications, and so has reliable sources to back it up. And it's not a list. --Interiot 21:51, 24 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.