Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford Thames (car)

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

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

This is a problematic article; It only describes the start and the first product of the marque. It only relies on 2 references, in order to provide info that is provided in a nicer way in the individual articles of the products of this brand; The fragments of unique info present only in this article are most propably wp:Synth. Was a draft originally created by a community-banned user before they were banned; when they got sanctioned, it was subsecuently both submitted and aproved by another user, in an severely incomplete state. In adition, there have been no concrete effort to improve the article, if we except the scarce random copyedit by a random user; Edits since creation are very few. In my opinion, this is a problematic article, which is better off deleted. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Products, Transportation, and United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The subject is good, the brand has several individual articles that could use an umbrella. If somebody grabbed a handful of flags and fired up a chainsaw they could leave a stub behind. Maybe just a glorified list. But there would be a starting point. Punching up stubs is pretty basic work.

You post "no concrete effort to improve the article" twenty-four hours after @Northamerica1000: made a GF edit, and you two had met before. I have problems with that.

I don't have the Ford Transit: Fifty Years source but I think that what you call "wp:Synth" might be closer to copyvio, and I wouldn't challenge it without the book. You may feel that it's off-topic but wp:Synth without any support?

Why shouldn't "a random user" be taken seriously, the edit meant something to them. Is the infobox good? See also? Categories? And I don't think the edits are especially low considering how few people care at all. It looks like everyone has been trying in GF to improve the article except you, you just want to throw it, and other editor's GF edits, away.

You haven't tried to improve the article, not even a post on the talk page, before you just started trying to delete it, even though the second time you knew someone was trying to fix it up. You just put your values over someone who was trying. If you didn't want to help you could have just moved on, instead of putting in the time in to destroy it.

You are clearly smart but not everybody else is. Should you judge others by your standards when you don't do it yourself? Was this inaccurate, somehow a liability, or do you want to delete it because you think it's ugly? You don't want anybody else to even have a chance? Creating and improving content is hard for many and there aren't many editors way out here. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy D III Thanks for your insight.

First of all, let me say this: In the In adition,...are very few section, i didnt specifically talk about Northamerica1000's edit, neither i wanted to insult them (if that's what NA1000 thinks, then, i'd apologise to them). I talk about all the edits since the article was moved to mainspace all up untill i proposed this for deletion,and i called random users everybody in that timespan, not just NA1000. You can see for yourself that all of theese edits are either minor copyedits, or bot edits; even NA1000's contrubution to the article, while, of cource, in good faith and admirable, was nothing more than the adition of a "See also" type section and a copyedit: Again, that's something good, but not something that i'd consider an concrete effort to improve the article. I do not consider this as effort to be kept, because, frankly, if that was the way, most articles here at AfD should be kept, because someone, sometime. fixed a typo!

About the rest that you imply about me, well, i have considered trying to improve the article. And i found it's not worth it, for the reasons i have already laid out in the deletion statement. This is most definitely synth and not copyvio, because the original creator of the article stiched up most of the info from that source, which, even it's name implies that it's not about the Thames brand.

I didnt put my values over someone who was trying; i just nominated this article for deletion after someone made a copyedit.

And you know what, the readers deserve much better than an clearly incomplete problematic article. My opinion is that, keeping articles like this undeleted in the faint hope that someone sometime might actually want to overhaul it, instead of, let's say, deleting it untill someone decides to create a better article on the same topic, is a deeply flawed ideal. This is something not only limited to en.wikipedia, but all wiki projects in general (all theese dead wikipedias, wikitionaries, and wikinews in theese dialects of a dialects of a dialects of a minor language, with info outta 2005). Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not in any way judge NA1000's edits, I only said that they were making them when you put the article up for deletion. You said that no concrete efforts were being made when NA1000 was editing. I think that’s misleading at best. What right do you have to judge whether their edits were "concrete". And I'd like to point out that NA1000 has been here forever and probably know their way around a little better than a rookie who is making enemies fast.

"You haven't" is hardly implying, it's saying it outright. You couldn't be bothered trying to improve content but you could be bothered to remove it.

Did you have access to Lee, Peter (2015-03-23). Ford Transit: Fifty Years. Crowood.

ISBN 9781847978745

. when you made that post? If so, I'm sorry, otherwise you're just throwing empty accusations around without support.

"stiched up most of the info from that source" is what we do here. If you edit you will know that.

"even it's name implies that it's not about the Thames brand". You're implying again. The "Ford Thames" 400E is the direct predecessor of the Transit and some history of the machines and market seems possible. Maybe not, but do you have the source? If so, sorry.

Your opinion is only one of 130,000 (editors) and several others are already disagreeing with it. I'm not sure what makes you think you can place your own values throughout Wikipedia. The people who make those edits, even minor copyedits, thought the article was worth keeping. Who do you think you are to just judge and throw away their work? They have the exact same rights as you do, maybe more.

Do you have this little respect for others in your real life? Feel free to respond, but I've had enough of your ego. I continue to oppose this deletion and will discuss it with other editors. Sammy D III (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand why you got so passionate in your reply (especially the last paragraph). I don’t want to insult anyone, nor I wanna make enemies.

Again, let me say that NA’s edits are of course most welcome, but not something that would be sufficient to keep the article. Plus, if I were in their position, i wouldn’t really mind if my efforts were gone alongside an article, if I weren’t it’s original author and/or made a huge change to it. (It has happened to me).

About the source, I, indeed, had access to it; although no more, and I don’t remember it word-by-word. Still, I’m very confident to the fact that it’s scope was not the brand as a whole. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sentences were uncalled for, and I'm very sorry. I also took one out about time editing. The rest stands. Sammy D III (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: What is the ambiguity for using (car)? The Ford Thames included what the US terms as trucks, vans (including the 400E Dormobile Campervan), mini vans (mini-panel vans), and bigger commercial vehicles, so it would seem that "if" there was a need to disambiguate then (automobile) or (vehicle) would be more correct. I will not likely !vote as my opinion of the correct procedure would be that many start or stub class articles should be merged to a single parent article, making one far better article, and no need for a DAB page titled Ford Thames. While the average person might not know a particular model it is a no-brainer that "Thames" on the front of a vehicle is clear. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Using US "car" for a British lorry certainly doesn't make any sense. US POV: I suggest you keep "Ford", it would be much clearer than simply "Thames". Sammy D III (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It qualifies for inclusion, the problem is one of inserting sources. The fact that we have articles on the individual models Ford Thames 400E, Ford Thames 300E, Fordson E83W and Ford Thames 307E (and others under Thames and Fordson names) means the parent company is obviously notable by default. The title might need a change, but obviously the brand (the subject of this article) is notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A brief
  blowing it up and starting over. Also, procedurally, the nominator hasn't stated a valid reason to delete the article.Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To be fair to the nom, I already blew it up without consensus here(TP too). What you see now is still terrible, but it's not what they first objected to. Sammy D III (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2022 (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.