Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles with hidden headlamps

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles with hidden headlamps

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a defining characteristic, just a list of WP:TRIVIA (often not even mentioned at the vehicle article itself, and otherwise usually just in passing, not as a major element), fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable topic for a list given the numerous articles listing cars with hidden headlights that show up with a Google search:

Keep: Notable list topic, significant coverage of cars with hidden headlights specifically because of their inclusion of said feature. (usually under the name "pop-up headlights). WP:LISTPURP: Information: Is a structured list, chronological useful for showing the development, rise, and decline of hidden headlamps. Alphabetical useful for showing the prevalence of the feature by certain brands. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appear to be a number of references on the page, but these do not appear to cover the totality of the items in the list. Therefore the contents are not WP:VERIFIABLE. Furthermore there may be variations in the vehicle models available in different countries so in order for the page to be accurate there would need to be a high level of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. JMWt (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have referenced approximately 65 vehicles as of now. Working on the rest to ensure WP:VERIFIABLE. IceBergYYC (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well there seem like a lot more than 65 vehicles left. Given the effort you are spending to extract the information, this seems to confirm WP:SYNTH - as there will necessarily be many references used. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what context does using individual sources stating or showing that a car has hidden headlamps classify as WP:SYNTH. I am simply passionate about this topic, and willing to expend effort to ensure the information is clear and available. I was under the impression that given 95% of these cars have wikipedia pages, the vast majority of which include reference to their hidden headlamps, that the only ones requiring additional citations for verifiability were those cars without wiki pages. IceBergYYC (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (1) Pop-up headlights are clearly a thing; people write about them. And therefore it's good that we have an article about them; (2) that article can clearly contain a list of cars with pop-up headlights, and if that list gets too big, it makes sense to bud it off into a separate list article, which this is; but (3) there's extra weight for having an article like this from the very fact that an awful lot of magazines have written exactly such lists, suggesting the whole concept of a list of cars with pop-up headlights is notable and expected, in a sense that cars-with-radiator-grills-turned-down-at-the-corners wouldn't be. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of OR/SYNTH on this, because summarising information from multiple sources is what we do; if we decide that combining multiple sources is synthesis, we'll end up in the absurd situation that we couldn't put a 16th C composer in a list of 16th C composers based on the verifiable fact that he composed in the 16th C, we'd have to wait until someone else published a list that included him. SYNTH would be taking an article that says hidden-headlights are sexy, and a list of cars with hidden-headlights, and creating a List of sexy cars. I'm not even going to test if that's a red-link. Elemimele (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well because it is a long list of information that is only sourced as far as an individual editor can be bothered.

Take for example if someone wants to write a page called List of authors called Thomas. Clearly one can find sources that refer to people called Thomas. One might be able to find a listicle of "10 famous authors called Thomas". It's possible that there's even an academic paper on The Thomases - if they happen to be a particularly famous family of authors or something.

In my view it requires synthesis to get from many tens or even hundreds of sources (some of which, in my example, might just be the title of books by someone called Thomas) to get to a list. To me it is no justification to point to low quality sources talking about authors called Thomas to show that the topic is notable.

That's my reasoning. JMWt (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:SYNTH is, SYNTH is the inclusion of novel information derived from cross referencing or making inferences based on sources. If you mean to argue failure to meet WP:NLIST "because it takes multiple sources" that would also be a mis-categorization based on the fact that there are a dozen+ references in the article acting as small compendiums of different categories of vehicles with hidden headlamps, therefore showing the notability of a list of vehicles hidden headlamps. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear, from the references, that any discuss the set from independent & reliable sources (WP:NLIST). Those that do discuss multiple at a time are just listicles, so not great sourcing. SWinxy (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new references [1] and [2] in the article, discussing the concept of pop-up headlights as a whole group, from an independant, reliable source. (Road and Track, one of the largest car publications. Car and Driver, the other largest.) IceBergYYC (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't go in that deep. Road and Track isn't even listing the headlights; they're just pointing to a YouTube video and not going as far. Lots of online publications in the 2010s made 'articles' that were just "hey look at this video" and added little to nothing on top. Car and Driver is more of a surface-level history overview, consisting of two paragraphs. SWinxy (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, mass market journalism is dead, a shell of it's imagined former self. That doesn't mean major, independant publications dont believe the concept of vehicles with hidden headlights is inherently notable enough to publish. IceBergYYC (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Inclined to support retention of this article as more convinced by the 'keep' arguments put forward by Elemimele and IceBergYYC. Here's another source to support the claim that the grouping is valid https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/51-great-cars-with-pop-up-lights/ss-AA13JG8V.

Not following the OR/SYNTH rationale. Haven't seen any rule that limits the number of sources used to verify inclusion in list articles. SYNTH relates to importing a conclusion not stated in the facts. If a vehicle can be verified to have pop-up headlights in a reliable source then it can be included in this list.

The list is too long for the Hidden headlamp article but remains within the bounds of acceptable length unlike some lists that are deleted where the criteria for inclusion are too broad.

It's a weak keep owing to the quality of sourcing for notability purposes i.e. listicles.

If the article's kept I'm looking forward to one being written on List of vehicles with vinyl roofs. Rupples (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There has to be a limit. hidden headlamps is not defining characteristic of a car like its form, its an individual design element, like the shape of the taillights. This list fails NLIST outside of trivia lists and coverage, there is coverage of cars with hidden headlamps, but nothing else. // Timothy :: talk 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References like [23] (https://heacockclassic.com/articles/pop-up-headlights-seventy-years-of-hidden-history/) are sources demonstrating the inherent notability of such a list; showcasing and explaining the different "eras" of hidden headlamps without being a "trivia" list. IceBergYYC (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying delete citing criteria of an essay you wrote? IceBergYYC (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: perhaps a niche topic, but the sources cited make clear that this is a meaningful categorisation used by publications about cars, given that so many of them explicitly group or distinguish between different models on that basis. We need to follow the sources, not make our own judgements about what are or aren't "important" aspects of design. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all editors involved. I agreed with them. CastJared (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2023 (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.