Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car Acronym

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

=[[Car Acronym]]=

:{{la|Car Acronym}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Car_Acronym Stats])

:({{Find sources|Car Acronym}})

Unsourced affair what looks like original research. Due to the high number of red links, doubtful if it is a useful article. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article was cloned as Trim level acronym (also at Afd). Not only are there many red links, but also many of the blue links (not even counting the blue-linked initialisms) do link to something entirely unrelated. Is there potential for merging some of the material to Car model#Trim level?  --Lambiam 09:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Trim level acronym has now been A10'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, a big sea of confusing redlinks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Assuming this is not copy-vio, it is potentially a useful compilation. However, most of the red links need to be delinked and replaced with a couplew of lines of text, explaining the significance of the designation. The author seems to have omitted DL - De Luxe. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete, this is original research at worst, extremely dubious sourcing at best. --Kinu t/c 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: clearly WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (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.