Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuki Kizashi

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 Delete Note: No keep !votes made valid arguments citing policy/guideline/precedent. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Kizashi

lacks notability as a concept car and violates WP:Crystal Ball as a "future" production car with no sources to back the statement/ Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL as it was unveiled at a car show... even though mainstream production hasn't begun. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. No sources to verify anything in the article and nothing to show what makes this specific car model notable. TJ Spyke 07:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory web search provides plenty of references. Jfire (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the job of those arguing to keep an article to provide references. TJ Spyke 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not. It is the job of the nominator to do a cursory search for sources and show that multiple reliable sources do not or cannot exist. Once it has been shown that such sources do or likely may exist, then the argument against the article's notability proof through sources is moot. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are no sources that validate any notability for the concept. All sources validate its existence, but that doesn't mean it's notable. References for all concepts cars from the past few years exist. Does it mean that all concept cars from the past few years should have an article about them (because not every concept car has an article about it)? As for it going into production, there are no sources to validate that claim, either. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SkyWalker (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain why. Remember that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion. As such, admins will ignore posts like yours when deciding whether or not to delete it. TJ Spyke 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails numerous criteria for inclusion.Delete unless sources are found and cited. Chardish (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article needs to be improved doesn't mean it should be deleted. If nothing else, the fact that there is a photo of the car is enough of a reference to verify that it does exist. IFCAR (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence doesn't equate to notability. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The pictures also don't say what those cars are (for all we know, someone could have taken a picture of a random car and said its a Suzuki Kizashi). Eitherway, the article has zero sources. TJ Spyke 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystal ballery. --DAJF (talk) 01:31, 15 January 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.