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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commuting vehicle[edit]

Personal commuting vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The term is a non-notable one in the motor industry. Google returns 430 hits [1]. The article creator has a conflict of interest insomuch as it was originally a copy/paste of their own website: personalcommutingvehicle.com – it was speedy deleted by myself as a copyvio. Then a discussion ensued on my talk page (still there as this was only yesterday) in which they virtually admitted that it was a "new" term [2] and that they wanted to "spark public discussion". I also found out that the creator works for a company called TTW which specialises in... personal commuting vehicles. Compare username to name (autore) at bottom of page. The article is pretty much original research and veiled spam. Even after I advised them this after the first creation, they still went ahead and recreated it, albeit with different words. For comparison, using the example of "how did SUV start?", also on my talk – 7.37m

• Delete as nom. – B.hotep •talk• 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spamtastic. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, OR. Ray^Talk 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - for odd reason. This term has four Google scholar hits. Let's use those to build an article. Anything else that goes in must meet Wikipedia's stringent criteria for reliable sources. TTW think they can invent language and subvert Wikipedia? Let's show them what number one search in Google means. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I like odd reasons. But can you bring those sources into the article and make something out of it? I'll start--by removing what is obviously fluff and would not be verified by any reliable source. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – OK, let's examine these sources. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your efforts, and your stance is not without merit. However, the idea is that Wikipedia covers topics that are already "out there", not to incubate, define or promote new terms. So, scholar sources:

1. [3] Granted, a passable reference in context

2. [4] Can't find an actual reference to the term in that link, please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong

3. [5] Refers to personal commuting vehicle in the context of motorcycles and scooters, i.e. two-wheelers

4. [6] from GooglePatents – a patent for a bicycle trailer (for children, the carrying of)

• So, all in all, one good reference – still not making a well-known term, and even less so a good article. And, by the way, news sources shows zero hits; books shows three: two are the same (impossible to determine context), and the other is irrelevant. – B.hotep •talk• 08:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all, I am the author of this entry. My intentions are to document a concept of transportation that is exhaustively being discussed in the media at the moment. The terms "Personal", "Urban", "Mobility", "Green" are used in any variation (Persu Mobility, Segway PUMA, Toyota PM concept, also TTW), and Personal Commuting Vehicle is one that has been documented already in newspaper articles (including Sole24Ore, Italy's leading Financial Newspaper). My intentions are not commercial, we are a spin-off of the Politecnico di Torino, Turin's Technical University, working on this vehicle concept. I believe we started the page incorrectly and biased and I apologize (was my first entry here). I would welcome the suggestion of NotAnIP83:149:66:11 to start the page on the base of the cited sources. Thanks for reading my comment. SGruender (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all newspapers calling them "personal commuting vehicles"? If not, what, so I can carry out another source test. The gist of my comments about the four sources NotAnIP found is that they would not suffice as references to build an article on. I'm not making it all up. It's there in this and this policy. – B.hotep •talk• 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "personal commuter" generates google search results very close to the article definition. However, the term is interpreted variously, also used are e.g. "commuter cars/vehices" by Tango and Volvo, "Electric commuter vehicle" by Myers Motors, "Personal urban commuter" by Robert Q. Riley, "Urban Life vehicle" by Persu Mobility, or "Personal Urban Mobility" by Segway for the PUMA.SGruender (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. JBsupreme (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficiently informative, though needs a little rewriting to reduce advocacy. DGG (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted above, the term is notable. However, the article needs substantial editing to remove the unsourced and the advocacy. --Pink Bull (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (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.