Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Years in motoring

Category:Years in motoring

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For all articles in this category(and the category itself because it will be empty):This is pure, unsourced(in one instance: one fact is sourced)WP:OR. Delete the junk.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Burning Pillar (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Burning Pillar (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - These "xxxx years in motoring" are unreferenced articles that mention only a brief and narrow perspective, as well as no context. In other words, there is no real value to the readers. The related category is also superfluous. There is no definition of "motoring" as it typically refers to the act of driving motor vehicles. However, the articles focus on the manufacture of new cars. Moreover, these descriptions seem to be short and random selection naming various car models that were introduced or marketed in a few markets. There is a far more detailed source of information in this topic among articles that are listed under Template:Automotive industry. These include more referenced details about the automotive industry events within national markets. These provide much greater value and background regarding the "motoring industry" in particular markets, in contrast to these "motoring by year" stubs. CZmarlin (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this is grounds for deletion. The facts could easily be sourced and more information added to give a wider perspective. Timelines and events-by-year pages are a well-established part of Wikipedia. There are publications such as Automobile Year and Australian Motoring Yearbook which treat the car industry on a year-by-year perspective. It's clearly not original research: all this is well covered in the motoring press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is WP:JUNK, all these articles are WP:SYNTH of events. Which events from the Automobile Year and similar publications do you want to include in the article? All of them? Your personal selection?Burning Pillar (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Motoring is a notable topic. AFD is not cleanup. The articles could be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion. Also, the category should be proposed at WP:CFD, not here, though if all the articles are deleted, it could probably be speedied. Until then, the category should not have been nominated for deletion at any venue. Smartyllama (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear how this is OR. Doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria in WP:NOTDIR. As stated above, AFD is not cleanup. If something can be cleaned up, it should be cleaned up rather than deleted. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colapeninsula, Smartyllama, and South Nashua:. AFD is not cleanup. That does not mean that we have to keep every junk, especially not this: These articles are the author's personal WP:SYNTH about what the author deemed important for these years. They cannot be assumed to resemble properly weighted articles about what happened in that time period; most of them only include cars, which means that they are effectively spreading MISinformation. Burning Pillar (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Burning Pillar: If there are inaccuracies or POV, you're encouraged to correct them. "Year in X" content is fairly common on Wikipedia, I'm not clear how this is any different. South Nashua (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, AFD is not cleanup. Lepricavark (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP? Let me provide you a different part of this essay that does not support you:WP:HARMFUL, which expicitely states that the lack of reliable sources is a VALID deletion criterion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is directed towards normal problems, especially format, grammar problems, WP:DEADEND, or minor issues with our content policies that do not justify removing the entire article. It is not directed towards unsourced, suspicious articles. Burning Pillar (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]