Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Supercar

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. Nothing but original research and a picture gallery. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Supercar

Largely POV essay on Japanese sports cars. tgies (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely original research. haz (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are articles on Italian, German, British supercars. It's a new article let it improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spell123 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Note that the above commenter is the author of all these articles, and the Italian, German, British supercar articles were just cut and pastes of Supercar. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as relevant information is already included in Supercar this article topic may be a reasonable sub-article to create if Supercar gets too big but, it is still OR and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for keeping or deleting an article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and irrelevant information for wiki »xytram« talk 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and the author fails in list supercars. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided citations start appearing. It's a very new article, if you'll look at the history. Move to userspace, at any rate. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than an OR essay that seems to be forked off Supercar. Arkyan 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR essay. Doesn't mention the Toyota 2000GT, either, showing that someone doesn't even know their Japanese sportscar history. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This article has potential but has room for improvement. It can be the template for future articles such as British,German,Italian, supercars etc. If approved, OR should be minimized to the fullest extent.Webster121 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is good, it's a new article and may improve. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as decent references can be found. I do find it absurd that some people like to put articles up for deletion almost immediately after they are created, though. Some time should be given (more than a six hours, for sure) before attacking an article like that. It's fine to mark it as needing improvement, but trying to get rid of it before the author (likely a new one, in this case, who may not be familiar with the various processes here) even has a chance to do anything with it? Nominating it six hours after creation is hardly showing good faith in the creator of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Attacking" the article? Perhaps I just want to improve the encyclopedia. Seems to me you might be skirting the edge of not assuming good faith yourself. At any rate, if an article's topic is inherently inappropriate, I don't see anything wrong with AfDing it. And it's not as though an AfD is a death sentence for an article. It generates discussion about the article, it inspires attempts by interested parties to improve the article, and eventually a consensus on whether or not the article should stay. It's just process at work. I think it's fallacious to assume an AfD listing is necessarily a Bad Thing. tgies (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And WP:AGF doesn't mean what you seem to think it means: assuming good faith (i.e. assuming that users are not acting maliciously in the absence of actual cut-and-dry malicious activity) isn't the same thing as "showing good faith in the creator of the article". tgies (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This article is WP:OR. Japanese Supercar#20th century and Japanese Supercar#21th century.....I think wikipedia is not Image collection (My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese)--Kanesue (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that the article should be deleted on this basis alone, but no further improvements from its creator can be expected, as Spell123 has recently been blocked.

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.