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 Keep. Mostly Rainy 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive flops[edit]

The article contains inherent POV, as there are no fixed standards for determining an "automotive flop". As can be seen in the article's history and discussion page, it provokes perpetual conflicts, and is used by some people as a means of publicizing their POVs on selected cars or brands. It is evaluatory in its nature, and Wikipedia's main task is not to evaluate, but to provide information. I do not see why would any user seek for such information on WP, and if found, this article can only compromise WP's status as a good source of impartial information. Bravada, talk - 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Another reason I should put Bravada in my "bad guys" list. --matador300 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to acquaint yourself with WP:NPA, and also try to understand a difference between factual information and value judgement. Bravada, talk - 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted, and I watch the page, and if some users, like Wairthu, use the page to just push POV, then I revert it. end of story. Karrmann 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it makes for interesting commentary. The individual articles linked from the page should have enough information that substantiates the concept of a "flop", though. The talk page for the list should contain some objective definition of what it means to be a flop, such as a short production run, lower than expected sales, or widespread criticism (like "Unsafe at Any Speed"). The Plymouth Prowler, for example, doesn't qualify for this list because it was intended to be a limited-production vehicle -- as far as I can tell, anyway. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the article sure made for some interesting discussions there is no reference for what a sales flop is. While I realize that this is vague concept, much like the term flagship, a policy similay to that found on the List of flagship vehicles by manufacturer, should be instituted here- one source for every vehicle listed as a flop. POV is not too strong, as Karrman stated, it is ususally removed quickly. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - let me reiterate that POV is INHERENT in such listings, and as we can see in the above comments even, it will be perpetually causing discussions and not reach a stable, satisfactory form. Wikipedia is also not a place to provide "interesting commentaries", encyclopedias do not provide these, but facts and information. Bravada, talk - 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I realize what you're trying to say, but rather than deleting the article for fear of wrongful inclusions in the list, lets find a way to better define "flop". Nobody is going to put Toyota Camry as an entry (the best selling car of the last decade in the US), and we won't have to worry about any excessively inappropriate inclusions. Also, if an entry seems to be not quite a flop, or questionable, the user simply has to click on it and more information about the car's sales failure can be given.

  It is a question of only allowing mathematically accurate and precise definitions, vs. allowing general consensus and obvious but unprovable fact. AdamBiswanger1 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "obvious but unprovable facts" are a nicely-sounding catchphrase that can serve as a loophole for introducing non-encylopedic topics and pseudo-information, while avoiding proper definitions and referencing. Sometimes a definition of a subject is vague, and this is then discussed by a given article, but the definition of a "automotive flop" is inherently subjective and dependent on the peculiar POV of a given person - there can be as many definitions as users here. But that's not the main point.

The main point is that lists in general should only be created if they are really needed in WP for information/navigation purposes, and are too big or cumbersome to be included as parts of an article or a template. For example, one would expect an encyclopedia to contain a full list of Chinese Emperors, with reign years, date of birth/death, dynasty etc. preferably, but it would be far too big to be included in the Emperor of China article. Therefore, some factual information got moved to a separate list/table.

But, as you can read here, lists are not a place to make value judgements. The WP:LIST guideline refers to people and organizations, but I believe making value judgements of places or items would also be quite improper - would you find a "list of cities which are really terrible" or "list of disgusting jewellery items" proper? This list is in fact very similar to those examples.

This could be remedied by devising a good definition and change the title to a non-judgemental one, like "List of automobile models that sold worse than manufacturers' sales projections", but would it be anything really necessary in an encyclopedia? Wouldn't it be better to keep such lists in car-related websites, where one does not have to mind NPOV, and which are in general directed at car buffs and not the general population of Internet users?

And if you believe a given vehicle WAS a flop, and have a good rationale for such statement, why not just include that in the article and not cause tensions by putting it on a "list"? Bravada, talk - 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a 3 paragraph response and then lost it in an edit conflict... I'll rewrite it in a while AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a given that some car models will flop for one reason or another. And it's also a given that deciding on what is or isn't a flop is definitely POV. The POV here, however, is not from the article editors, but rather the automotive press, the manufacturers, and the general public. I found the article through the AfD, and it's a fascinating read on all the ways the automobile industry has mucked thigs up over the years. --DarkAudit 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkAudit is absoutely right, the POV here comes from the Auto industry not the users. The only problem is lack of referencing. Upon the appearances of references (hey, that ryhmes! ;-) I will change my vote to keep as well. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does the auto industry generate POV here? Have you ever read an official GM press release stating "Cadillac Cimarron is a flop"? Flop is a term expressing value judgement, the inclusion of a vehicle in this list is purely a POV action on the user's side. Bravada, talk - 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The press is POV because they label these vehicles, "flops" through various publications. Signature^brendel 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The press is not industry 2) The press is POV and this is why WP does not contain everything that the press writes, and the editors should be very careful and considerate when citing the media, and especially should make sure they separated opinion from factual information. Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's not a value judgment as in a page called "List of really, really good authors" or "great recipes". It's a value judgment of common sense, and although I know that some people don't have it, the definition of a "flop" is so obvious and yet intangible that we cannot let a need for an exact definitions be the downfall of this article. In addition, each entry is explained, so we can let the reader decide. AdamBiswanger1 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you laugh if I say that the above statement is POV? Bravada, talk - 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing indefinable with POV. See Grey area. Other than that, I'm not sure why you would consider it POV. AdamBiswanger1 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you've got something that's indefinable and within a "grey area", then trying to categorize items definitely according to that criterium is POV. You put something on the list because your "common sense" suggests you that it is a flop. Still, some other person might not think of it as flop, and as being a flop is not defined well and a "grey area", you can both be right in your own perception and there is no neutral and fixed criteria to decide who is right. Therefore, putting or deleting anything on the list is inherently POV.

As concerns "we can let the reader decide", the reader is browsing through an encyclopedia not really thinking all the time whether the information contained here is true or not, so this list should contain a disclaimer like

If this does not prove how nonsensical this whole thing is, then what would? Bravada, talk - 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm going to be strange here and vote delete I can't see this list ever getting to NPOV or past the WP:NOR stage. Whispering 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is written now. Too opinionated and a lack of credible resources. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Not an encyclopedically definable topic. Barno 21:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep God I hope this isn't another one of Mmx1's deletes. Every one of these can be backed up by an external reference which claims one of these was a flop, all it needs are some references. This is a terrific article that does not deserve to be purged, and I apologize if this is another article that got wiped out because mmx1 didn't like my editing part of the list of scientific failures. There are many success and flop lists on WP, in the absence of a total ban on these pages, it makes no sense to keep or delete these on the basis of how popular they are, since the most popular pages usually survive such requests. --matador300 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per above. BigE1977 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Steong keep as mentioned by matador300. --Arbiteroftruth 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to List of automobiles that were commercial failures. The article is already in Category:Commercial failure lists. Vegaswikian 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep possibly renaming to List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Entries seem to be autos that are generally regarded by the automotive press as failures. References would be helpful to substantiate inclusion in this list. --rogerd 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list undoubtedly expresses a POV on each brand concerned, and a title including the word 'flops' makes it impossible for the article not to violate WP:NPOV. It's also completely unsourced, so claims that it only reports points of view rather than express its own can't be verified. I agree with Bravada's analysis of why it's not appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that this is no longer completely unsourced, as I've been adding quotes from sources that say these cars were failures. I like the renaming idea too. --matador300 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a sidenote, the reference you just added to the section on "Eagle" pertains to the Premier as lacking sales success, not the brand. Bravada, talk - 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename to List of automobiles that were commercial failures sounds better Yuckfoo 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.