Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studebaker Motor Company

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 of the debate was delete. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studebaker Motor Company

Subject of article appears not to exist as a serious, viable company, but is speculative in nature and produces no known goods. Search returns on A7, Google and Yahoo either take one to the "company's" own out-dated web page (registered to a person, not a company), back to the Wikipedia article (and Wikipedia content sourced sites), or quote from the "company's" web page which hasn't been updated in almost a year. Stude62 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE there is additional discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Studebaker_Motor_Company ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Absent better evidence of notability, merge content to Studebaker as an apparently failed restart attempt, and leave a redirect to that article. (I once owned a 1962 Studebaker pickup but it was a nonstarter, just like this new company.) ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Merge is not reall a good choice given discussion below. Changing my thinking to userify to Settinghawk's space if he agrees and wants that, else Delete as not notable enough yet... Leave a redirect anyway I think since SMC is mentioned in the main Studebaker article ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment, Studebaker's article already contains a mention of the "entity". There is also an implied connection on the part of SMC that takes Studebaker's real history and tries to ride on its laurels. Stude62 21:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Nod. Well maybe then there's nothing of value remaining in this article to merge. The coattails effect would be interesting to include in Studebaker if there were a cite for it... ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Follow Up I have told Stude62 that I would give him information to where he can find out more about the company. I feel that he is being one sided and not open to the idea that there is Studebaker Motor Company Inc Licensed with NHTSA/DOT. He has not asked me for any of that informaiton. But I would Still be more than happy to give it to him. And I checked out their site today and there has been updates, So I feel that Stude62 is missleading about that. I could not find any miss spelled words in any of there press releases. User_talk:Settinghawk 17:36, 12 March
          • Settinghawk, I find it interesting that you have been able to find any press information on the company, especially a release that appears as the AfD is posted. There are also simularities between your writting style and the writing style on the web page for the entity and its press releases (case changes, sentence structures, etc.)- do you have a personal interest in this "entity". If you do, you should disclose it. Stude62 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Follow Up2 I just checked Whois.com they show that studebakermotorcompany.com is reg to Studebaker Motor Company Inc ?? User_talk:Settinghawk 18:13 12 March
          • Settinghawk, as I posted on your talk, a search of the domain name through NetworkSloutions and Whois.com does not verify that Studebaker Motor Company owns the Domain name. If you are getting information that SMC owns the domain name, can you provide us with a link that verifies that fact so others can check it out? Stude62 03:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Stude62, http://whois.com/WhoisLookup.aspx?dnl=studebakermotorcompany.com
            • That link says nothing whatsoever about domain ownership. ⇒ BRossow T/C 18:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Brossow it did but whois had since restricted it because of the number of times the link was clicked on, you'll have to go in through www.whois.com and try get that way or wait a few days for the block to be lifted.--Settinghawk 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Domain ownership only addresses verifiability, not notability. I own a domain for my company and it's not notable. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Ditto. ⇒ BRossow T/C 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Follow Up 3 From what I do understand it is a legitimate startup. And that there has been a ton of research done. My tiff is that while trying to build a constructive page about the facts that I have gotten. I am told in so many words that I am stupid. I am trying to build a page about the company and be open minded and not closed minded and pre judgmental. Because just maybe they are coming out with vehicles. Have you every done research in how long it takes to design and engineer a vehicle. Not to mention all the testing that needs to be done as well. All I ask is that you be open minded , if you don’t like the page that I am working on building then just ignore it. Would you like if I went into one of your topics and deleted everything or put it up for review to be deleted? No you wouldn’t and I am not going to do that. Now Stude62 and I have been at it from just about my first day here a Wikipedia. and I feel this may also be his own way of getting sweet poetic justice! Because he just may not like me posting anything at all. This may or may not be so but it is how I feel. I do not claim to know every thing or be an expert either, but anyone who does claim to be an expert is only limiting intellectual growth of learning and discovering new things.--Settinghawk 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • A few things:
  1. I am not sure you've internalised what people are telling you yet. Wikipedia's mission is to document what is already known about notable entities. Founding a company that bends metal certainly is hard. But until it actually produces products, or until it has notoriety in the external press, it's not notable. Please read the links given about notability and think about it. "Just maybe" means it isn't yet notable.
  2. You say "from what I understand"... Cite your sources, in the article. Why is it legit? Who said it was? When? See WP:V. Read it and think about what it says.
  3. User pages are given much wider latitude than articlespace pages. You might want to consider writing the article in userspace, and when you're done, using move to bring it to articlespace.
  4. Please, assume good faith here with regard to the actions of your fellow editors. Again, follow the WP:AGF link and think about what it says. No one is saying you're "stupid", just that you haven't internalised how things are here. We all were new once, if you go back 2600 edits in my history you'll find me saying some of the same things you are... This article is about what seems to be a non notable outfit. That doesn't mean we're saying you're a bad person, or that Stude62 is out to get you. He's presumably working for the good of the encyclopedia, as are we all.
Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Follow Up 3[.5] Wiki States this in one of the links you gave : Correcting someone's error (even if you think it was deliberate) is better, than accusing him or her of lying because the person is more likely to take it in a good-natured fashion. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.I have already had a whole part of my posting deleted. So am I sopose to take that, in good-natured-fasion ?!? --Settinghawk 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you talking about here? No one has intentionally changed the wording of anything you said that I am aware of, although I have reformatted some of it to make it fit with the way things are done in this type of discussion. Can you provide a diff (use the history tab and then provide the URL of the difference that clearly shows what you mean)? If I've inadvertantly deleted anything I would apologise, and happily put it back. (it's bad form to remove comments on talk pages by others unless they are hugely abusive, obscene or clearly not in good faith) If you're talking about the article itself... it says below the save page button: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."... remember, Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT. If other folks editing your initial submission to make it better bothers you, this may not be the place for you. See WP:OWN Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Follow Up 4 Lar, I was talking about the article itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Studebaker_Motor_Company&oldid=41811602 I was gonna go in my self and restructure this part. ie redo Legal notice from Studebaker Motor Company site and before i had the op to do it. Stude62 had completelly deleted it. he did three back to back edits, then i went in and added, Studebaker Motor Company is "the modern 21st company" An Old Name A New Company , can see at, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Studebaker_Motor_Company&oldid=43442247 then i went back and did a small edit on the word companines to company. The Stude62 went in an added a tag, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Studebaker_Motor_Company&oldid=43442247 then less than 4 hours later he went in and added the deletion tag. To me it really seems and feels like he just did not want me posting any of my thoughts or anything. If it could not be completelly his way then it was not going to be at all.--Settinghawk 14:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
            • One Other thing, at no time did Stude62 say to me. Hey let me help you make this a better article or give you some helpfull advice. I really feel like he was judgmental and not open minded.I have no problems with someone helping with or adding to the article. --Settinghawk 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I looked over the edit history and didn't see anything out of line. Remember, you do not own your article. It would have been nice if Stude62 had communicated his intentions on the article's discussion page but neither did you. Content disputes should be discussed on the discussion page. If you happen to be affiliated with the company, or think for any reason that the article must contain certain language, then you should bery carefully read the terms of the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License because articles here can be edited by anyone, you have no right to have certain content included, and that means negative information could be added and you or the company would have no say about it. In the final analysis nothing you want to say here about SMC can be independently verified.Thatcher131 16:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Here email this Guy David Coleman; david.coleman@nhtsa.dot.gov and ask him about Studebaker Motor Company Inc. He is with The US Department Of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration. If you want his phone number i'll give that to you too. --Settinghawk 17:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia is a source for verifiable information about notable things. I have not been able to verify that SMC exists, or that "mobotics" exists; The Lexis/Nexis database of corporate information doesn't recognize "Studebaker Motor Company" and there have not even been any press releases put out that I can find. (It would be useful to provide the state in which SMC is registered and its official business name, so someone could check it out.) The fact that SMC is listed with NHTSA means nothing as far as I am concerned; it might just mean they make motorcyle brake pads, or that they plan someday to make cars. There are thousands of businesses for which someday never comes. SMC could be nothing more than a pyramid investment scam. At the present time, I have just as much verifiable information about that as you do that SMC will revolutionize the auto industry with "mobotics." When the company has been profiled in the Wall Street Journal, or the concept car reviewed by Road & Track, then there will be the basis for an article.Thatcher131 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The alternatives are to 1) ignore it and 2) make anyone who looks the (new) company up in Wikipedia wade through the existing article to learn of the new business, even if it's just the corporate equivalent of vaporware. Monicasdude 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's too bad redirects can't point you to an article section. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep your pants on a little bit longer, there'll be plenty to get excited about when SMC starts it's mass production..This company is all I have to hang on to, and they will redefine the auto industry, that I promise..so save it, these cars will be worth the wait.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sykolojik (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 March 2006. only post made to date by the user name. Stude62 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not to worry if this article gets deleted. Wikipedia will still be here when that happy future day of auto industry redefinition comes, and an article will easily be notable then. Till then, no rush. (BTW: it's 2006, where's my flying car?) ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Studebaker" and "mobitic", or just "mobotic" alone, or "Studebaker motor company" all generate zero hits on Lexis/Nexis. Monicasdude makes a useful point but at this point the claims are totally nonverifiable through traditional sources. This could be anything from a legitimate startup to an investment scam. Thatcher131 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Since Wikipedia is not a business directory for start-ups, I'm not sure how useful any point he is making actually is. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have just discovered that Studebaker Motors was mentioned on this site, and after coming here for sometime now for information and a sence of intellegent public opinion am shocked to see this company's credencials questioned. I know 2 people doing design work with their concept vehicles. As far as I can tell this is a legitimate business in a state of growth.Dracornix 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Dracornix Monday March 13 2006 12:42AM User's first edit to Wikipedia ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Let there be some verifiable proof that they exist and fulfill WP:CORP, then we'll talk. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reeks of amateurishness. Website says "Studebaker Motor Company Inc has had a lot of things going on and new directions where and are being taken." As Lar says, at such time as they actually have product the article can easily be recreated (or restored). --kingboyk 06:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note... Amateurishness is a reason to fix an article, not to delete it. This in my view fails on N and V grounds. Amateurishness we can fix. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Not if it's on their website! My comment was that the website doesn't read like one owned by a serious corporation. --kingboyk 15:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per kingboyk --Khoikhoi 08:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Thatcher - we need to refocus on the issue of verification. What exactly does the NTSB have to do with this Studebaker Motor Company? Do we know what state this venture is incorporated so the articles of incorporation can be verified? Does this enterprise have a street address or telephone listing? Who are the Corporate Officers? Does it have a product or prototype that has been shown to the public? Until these questions can be verified, the article doesn't seem to meet the standards of verifiably that Wikipedia promotes. OnceBitten 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
See on the talk page, they are registered with NHTSA and they are incorporated in the state of Texas. This proves they are a real company and may plan to manufacture motorcycles and cars, but doesn't prove they have or are even close to it.Thatcher131 15:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ BRossow T/C 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the very least, this new company will eventually have to tackle the folks at Avanti which has a Studebaker SUV on the market. I would check back on this in six months. Jtmichcock 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow Up 4 So Lar what is the next stage?--Settinghawk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am flattered you are asking ME but I am just some random schlub that likes to talk, not an admin or anything. But here's my guesses... A quick nose count (taking into account that those editors that turned up here just to express opinions about this one article and never contributed anything before this probably would be discounted in judging consensus) shows that it's likely that consensus will be to delete this article. Remember, I am not an admin, much less the closing admin... things could still change but sometime around 17 Mar at the same time as the start (5 days later) an admin will turn up and make the call, and close out the discussion. If deletion is the consensus, the admin will delete it. If no consensus, or keep, the admin will tag the talk page of the article with the result. In either case this discussion gets archived, with tags around it to show it's closed... If enough people support userify, the admin will, instead of deleting, userify the article to your namespace, assuming you indicate that's what you want too. (for the record if you so requested, I'd support such a move). For more details, read here: Articles_for_deletion and some of the pages it links (especially Guide to deletion which is quite good... but not all of them! you can go quite deep there... don't follow EVERY link). Hope that helps. Remember, you could always userify it yourself in advance if you wanted to. For an article like this that would probably not result in it getting deleted (but something quite objectionable or obnoxious or divisive would not be protected from it... userspace still belongs to the project, it's just that you get a bit more latitude there) One last thought, whatever happens... don't take it personally. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not personalities. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userify If the article should have to be deleted I would like to move it over to my userspace. Side note thanks you Lar, I am trying my best to remember that Wikipedia is about knowledege and not the personalities!--Settinghawk 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Now that we've been through all of the discussions and and have finally gotten beyond the issue of verifiability, I have no problem with the content being taken over to Settinghawk's user page. However, I do think that there seems to be consensus on the issue that if and when "Studebaker Motor Company" reemerges as a legitimate article on Wikipedia that it needs to be written in a factual manner and referenced in a manner that allows its content to be verified. On a separate issue, however, I do invite Settinghawk to discuss with me about his claims that my efforts to have the article removed were in some way "personality based", which was never part of an agenda of mine relative to this AfD. Stude62 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace, delete until this company produces real products, per Stude62, Settinghawk. Dan, the CowMan 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mmeinhart 22:50, 19 March 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.