Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIN Codes

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 No consensus the article does contain some sourcing though its incomplete for all the information which needs to be addressed if the article is to be retained. There are obvious WP:COI with this discussion and the availability of the information this has influenced the discussion as such, taking a diffinative action with knowledge isnt appropriate. Gnangarra 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ford VIN codes

List_of_Ford_VIN_codes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I've created a new book with the help of a b:User:Mike.lifeguard, b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes). It consists of all of the articles that were jarringly out of place on Wikipedia. I should also add information previously purged from articles was incorporated into the new book.

Articles in AFD or in uncontested {{prod}} state

  1. Ferrari VIN Code‎
  2. Volvo VIN Numbers‎
  3. Toyota VIN codes‎
  4. Lamborghini VIN code‎
  5. Land Rover VIN codes‎
  6. Mercedes-Benz VIN codes‎
  7. Maserati VIN code‎
  8. List of GM VIN codes‎
  9. Honda Automotive VIN codes‎
  10. Subaru VIN codes‎
  11. List of Ford VIN codes only contested {{prod}} as of time of writing

The majority of these articles were plagued with a number issues and violate a number of current wikipedia policies.

  • Rely heavily upon one source, or are totally unsourced
  • update: All articles except the one on Ford are totally unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanCarroll (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disproportionately weight towards a database-type dump
  • WP:IINFO
  • No wiki-linkage that united one manufacturer to the next
  • WP:A

All of these problems made the aforementioned articles a better fit for the Wikibook project. And, so it's my suggestion that we finally delete them.

The person to first object did so to the Ford article, it was User:AtholM for reasons unstated.

EvanCarroll (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not double vote.

  • Comment and reserve right to vote later. Perhaps the nominator might like to actually wikilink to valid policy reasons for deletion. WP:INFO is a redir to Category:Infobox templates and W:A links to the article about the letter A. Deleting multiple articles from wikipedia and shuffling the content off to some obscure hiding place where the information will neither be found nor added to is hardly what I consider a step forward, and I'd like to see some genuine reasons for doing so. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good eye, updated. Be Civil, wikibooks is not an obscure hiding place, it is a method of unifying multiple articles that are outside of the scope of an encylopedia. Wikipedia is simply is not the place to construct a database on VIN-codes. Wiki-tech might be good here, as in group collaboration, but not under the umbrella of an encyclopedia -- probably not under the umbrella of a book either, but at least a book is a step in the right direction, further explication can lead to merging the book into a greater book that actually has a goal of educating rather than just listing niche codes. We don't have a article for every make/model of anything. Try to find a table of Dell computers and model numbers, or HP computer and models numbers. Some things are hard to put into prose, and a simple table doesn't suffice inclusion into wikipedia. Categories were made to eliminate lists. the SNOWBALL is heavily against non-prose articles, and this is a prime example. EvanCarroll (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I stated prevouslly, I only favor placing VIN code information in a Wikibook if links are provided in the body of the VIN article.THD3 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    You're not supposed to place WB links inside a WP article, it is linked in the see also using the WP template. Both WP, and WB are supposed to be self-contained, linkage is done through said templates. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. My historical COI is somehow a reason for me not to point yours out? This situation exists because you deleted a lot of information, not because I disagree with the deletions. What have I done besides disagree with you and receive your insults? Corey Salzano (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd claim your COI isn't historical; you haven't established my COI, other than presenting it as a fact. I disclaimed what might be perceived as a COI, and my involvement -- you did no such thing. And every claim towards COI you have at me, I have a direct parallel at you. We both work for companies that license data from chrome. That doesn't have any effect whatsoever on my arguments for deletion or inclusion, instead you attack ad hominem rather than debate the {{AfD}} on its merits. This is a logical fallacy that impedes the discourse that is supposed to take place in an {{AfD}} EvanCarroll (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Keep - I am not sure what is more appropriate with a Wikibook. It seems a redirect would work nice in this situation. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thud3, Salzano and Gtstricky. I don't understand Nom's opposition even to navigational tools within the VIN article... put it in a Wikibook, but you can't let anyone know it's there? Mandsford (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is Thud3? If you want to link to the Wikibook in the WP Article that is fine by me. I just won't do it because the right way is per the WP template, the upcoming Wikipedia 1.0 is supposed to be self-contained. Not to even remotely suggest this article will ever achieve FA status in either state. The {{wikibooks}} template belongs in See Also, that is the SNOWBALL if the section exists. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as there is no assertion of notability or usefulness of the car-cruft. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article is already listed on Wikibooks (so to speak) and there is no need for it here. Doesn't meet any speedy criteria as far as I can see. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:27, 20 December 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.