Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptera 2 Series

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. causa sui (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

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

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article about a future product is based entirely on press releases and web sites from the manufacturer. There is no sustained independent coverage in serious journalistic or scholarly sources. There are passing mentions in a couple blogs, which is insufficient. See also WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of announcements of future products. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The Aptera design is notable for several things: three wheels, low aerodynamic drag, prototype was a finalist in the Automotive X Prize, many 3rd party media writeups (Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, EV journals). It should be given the same weight as other concept cars at the moment. That said, it could indeed use cleanup; much of the detail is obsolete, from before the Detroit takeover when it was still a media darling. The Aptera fanbase which would have done the editing has dispersed due to the company's mismanagement. Surely there are other low-hanging fruit, like the demise of the Triac (car)? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those issues and all that drama (bankruptcies, takeovers, redesigns, slipped ship dates, etc...) is typical of vaporware, and it's exactly why pages about future products that exist mostly in the form of press releases and rumored venture capital should be deleted on sight without solid, critical reporting from mainstream publications, based on real research carried out by a professional. Paraphrasing a press release is fluff. Many blogs and some magazines exist to entertain their readers with pie in the sky inventions. Somebody faxes a press release and a CAD-CAM rendering to Popular Science or Wired and they write a credulous blurb about it. All in good fun, but that's not encyclopedic because it isn't knowledge, it's just somebody's promise about what they hope to do some day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

It qualifies under WP:ORGIN. The design is original, and a very dramatic departure from conventional vehicle design in several ways: 3-wheels, composit body, extremely aerodynamic shape, and others.
It qualifies under WP:CORPDEPTH. Many print and electronic news organizations have covered the Aptera 2 Series and the company over the years. A recent [Google search on "Aptera 2 Series"] found about 139,000 results. If you follow the link and review the search results, you will find that very, very few of the sitings are from the Aptera company web site.
While sustained coverage is not required for notability, The [New York Times], a WP:RS, covered an Aptera 2 Series visit less than 1 year ago.
Every Automotive X Prize competitor gets consideration under WP:V and WP:NRVE. All finalists underwent independent testing supervised both by the Xprise organization, and the Argonne National Laboratory.
Aptera Motors is an on-going business, and the Aptera 2 Series can be revived, however unlikely that seems. Let us not delete Aptera articles prematurely. Let us err on the side of inclusion. Devrandy (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They are not just vaporware with press releases and promises. They are still a functioning company that has 5 prototype vehicles that are driving around San Diego on a daily basis. Sure, they are on the brink of bankruptcy, but there is still a chance that this revolutionary vehicle may make it to market. I agree with the comments of the two dissenters above. For these reasons, I think we should keep this information available to the public. If the company should disappear without producing any salable products, then I agree with putting them down as a footnote on a page regarding efficient aerodynamic vehicles.--Palmer md (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Devrandy (above) should be aware that enlisting employees of this company to create single purpose accounts in order to attempt to "vote" in favor of your company's article, or creating sock puppet accounts for the same purpose is extremely obvious, and it is counterproductive. The best you can hope for is that the admins will ignore your "votes". And it's not a vote anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stick to the rules and not attack the people who post here. I have absolutely no affiliation with Aptera other than I really liked the concept car when I first discovered it in 2007. You can trace my posts and/or ask me yourself, but I promise you and everyone else who reads this that I have no affiliation with Aptera.--76.29.168.121 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Palmer md (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, also, have no affiliation with Aptera, the company or the vehicle. Yes, my Wikipedia account is new. No, I have not contributed to Wikipedia content (yet), except in this matter. If the admins decide to keep the Aptera 2 Series article, I promise to improve it. :-) Devrandy (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, not a falsehood, that everyone, and that includes you, should be aware of WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:SPS. By ensuring everyone is familiar with these guidelines, discussions can be kept on track and the best decision can be made. Nobody accused you of anything except the need to be familiar with Wikipedia's rules; all of us share the same need. Timely reminders of relevant policies are effective preventing unhelpful comments, if any, from increasing in number. If, having carefully read and considered these policies and guidelines, you feel none of them apply to your behavior, then so much the better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is video of the Aptera being driven by Jay Leno, alone, here: http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/search/?search=aptera. It exists, at least a prototype does. This page should never be deleted, but it might need to be edited. I am a potential customer with no relation to the company. Helot 02:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helot (talk • contribs)

Existence ≠ Notability. Wikipedia is not about everything. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 24 July 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:00, 27 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Yes, there is a prototype car named the Aptera 2, and yes it is mentioned quite a bit on the web. But it does not exist yet in production, and there are no independent secondary sources that discuss it in depth. As far as I can tell, 99% of the material is promotional in nature, or informal blogs. I do see some mention in a book named "Aptera" by Tom Warhol, but that book is thin (50 pages) and more of a lightweight pamphlet. That book, alone, doesnt seem to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 4 August 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.