Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Motors Impact

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 merge to General Motors EV1. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors Impact

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just an essay/content fork of EV-1. tedder (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is content fork; fails WP:ESSAY; has serious WP:POV issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the page may be a content fork, however it does have specific information about the concept car (Impact) that does not affect the EV-1. It also does not have WP:POV issues. Everything it talks about is neutral and factual that has supporting quotes and information from the people talked about.Electric Car Guru 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete, (WP:FORK). This appears to be a content fork but it contains information that can be placed in the EV1 article. Also, I agree that this article is written in a neutral tone, and is factual. With a few more sources, and maybe some copy editing, this would be an acceptable article for Wikipedia - except that it appears to be a content fork. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds notable, but merger with Ev-1 seems logical way to organize.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are some useful details here to merge back into the EV1 article. But I believe this article does have significant NPOV issues. There are many, many details which are not to be found in any of the linked references. And there is a hint of a conspiracy theory about the demise of the EV1, for instance, when the article asserts that "The company openly stated in several press conferences that they were not entirely pleased with having succeeded in making a practical electric car." This sentence is not only not supported, but actually refuted, by one of the sources listed, where executives are quoted at a press conference as supporting its production for mass markets. This is not to say that the article's assertions are false, but they need more support. My guess is that the overall structure of this article is inspired by the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car?, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph. That may be a good thing if it's a reliable source but if so it should be referenced. NeilK (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it has POV issues, not NPOV issues

tedder (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (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.