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 do...something. To be honest, while it's clear that there's a consensus to not have this article in the main namespace, there's no consensus on what specifically should be done with it. There seems to be slightly more support for a merge than for outright deletion, but the merge target with the most support doesn't exist yet.

So let's do this. Rather than delete the article, I'm going to userfy it to User:Smile a While/Car life cycle. This will allow other editors time to expand it to fill the new title while reflecting consensus that the current article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a sort of POV fork, though not to express a controversial point of view as is usually the case. The problem here is that this concept has been covered already in articles such as antique car, vintage car, classic car and used car. The concept of an "old car" is no more notable than an "old boat," "old person," "old dog" or "old" anything else. Moreover, this article depends quite a bit on original research or unsourced opinion of the author. The author has provided several sources, but few really address "old cars" as a concept in and of itself. The concept of an "old car" is simply not notable enough for an article, especially when it is already covered in other articles. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does indeed appear to be a POV fork. Arkyan 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, has plenty references, and the intro section to the article explains how the term "old car" is used. The term "old" is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. In fact, there is an article called "old age" (referring to people). And being covered in other articles does not mean there can't be an article like this, especially that this is a widely-used term that does not have the exact same meaning as the other ones the nom mentioned. This article does not have a neutrality issue - it explains both sides of the topic. Therefore, it cannot be considered a POV fork. Hellno2 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for all the reasons nominator Realkyhick said (POV fork, unsourced/O.R. information, irrelevant and insufficient references, quality coverage in vintage car and antique car and classic car and used car) -- those are rock-solid reasons for deleting this. ALSO: the article is written from the perspective (i.e. tone) of a consumer's guide, discussing pros and cons and aspects like Consumer Reports would discuss washing machines. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a directory, etc. Nuberger13 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Merge to classic car. The classic car article gets it all. Starts off by saying "Classic car is a term frequently used to describe an older car, but the exact meaning is subject to differences in opinion." I think that's what the main writer of this article was trying to say. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to classic car per Xyz7890 DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reads like text from a "how-to" seminar. There's nothing in this article that separates it from classic car, vintage car, antique car, or even used car (and the message seems more geared toward the last of the three). If this article is to be kept, recommend a merge into "used car." B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into used car (which currently reads like an advertisement for the used car industry, and not an article about old cars and their ownership covered here. An old car is categorically not a classic car. You would not take a classic car banger racing, and if you drive a knackered out 10/15 year old Buick/Ford Escort and you actually say you drive a classic car, you are most definitely being an idiot/arse. Modern classic cars are comletely distinct from this topic. In fact it could also be argued that an old car is not even a used car technically, as you can get people driving old cars for the reasons herein, but they actualy bought the car new themselves 10/15 years ago, so it never becomes a second hand car, but this fact still doesn't make this topic anywhere near being part of the classic car article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I had suggested on the Old car discussion page that the problems with this article may be solvable simply by renaming the article, but I did not rename it myself because I was looking for some suggestions for a new title from others. Fact is, though it is not an exact number, but rather an arguable level, there is a point in which society will come to view a car as "old." Since "old car" and "used car" are not exactly the same thing, the solution may simply be to have an article about vehicle age.Hellno2 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into new article Car life cycle. As the intro to the page states 'old' is undefinable. Consequently I am unconvinced that this is an encyclopedic topic. However, I am reluctant to junk someone's work when it is sourced, and I think that there is an article out there that can be written. Car life cycle could cover the purchase of a new car, its pros and cons, car testing requirements that come into force as the car ages, the present stuff on old cars and finally the implications of writing off a car. Just a thought. Smile a While (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think you may have a winner here - a title that covers it all without any problems that I can see. This could also cover used, antique and classic cars, as well as new cars. If others are amenable to this, I might withdraw my nomination in favor of this. Anyone else? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - I like the idea of merging all into the "car life cycle" article. I'd like to point out that, because the car is basically a 20th century thing, "old" is a relative term. If what's "old" now is 80 years, then 200 years from now what will our current "old" cars be? Ancient? Hoary? What about 200 years from then? I don't think something can be considered encyclopedic if it's transient in the sense that it WILL (not might) change with time. Nuberger13 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Same as those above me. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (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.