- 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 keep. There appears to be some kind of consensus with the agreement of the OP that does not involve deletion or redirection. Editors should feel free to pursue whatever moves and reversions they think appropriate. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Rover 200 Series / 400 Series
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rover 200 Series / 400 Series ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not an article, not a sensible disambig or redirect, not linked from any articles, no purpose now that the two topics have their own articles. So delete. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and restore to something like this version.
- The point is, as that article explained reasonably well, if floridly, is that the 200 and 400 are pretty much the same car. The article might be clearer if trimmed and renamed to something like the Rover R8 platform. This was a highly significant design in Rover's history. It was sometimes seen as "the first non-crap Rover in decades".
- Should the Mark I and 416 sections be in here? Probably not. They have no relevance to the R8, and it's the R8 which is the notable part of this, and why the article title conflates the two model numbers.
- "Platforms" in the US sense, weren't common in the UK at this time. We either developed unique cars, duplicating the same market sector betwen different factories and marques (BL, I mean you), or else did feeble badge engineering by thinking that swapping the radiator badge and the type of wood in the dashboard veneer fooled anyone. The R8 though was a brave (and successful) attempt to make a reliable Rover by developing a single platform, then using it across the range, even when there were differing numbers of doors and windows on top of it.
- WP, in its usual ignorance, has instead split this article into two as
Rover 200 / 25 and
Rover 400 / 45. Which is easier to write if you're not even in the UK and just watching Top Gear, but it makes no sense for the engineering development of the R8, or the commercial history of Rover's recovery in the '90s.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
16:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Great idea. I support moving to
Rover R8 platform and restoring the old version you linked and working from there.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Goodness, I'd forgotten all about that version - I did a lot of work on that back in the day but was overruled, unfortunately. I fully support something similar as it's much more logical. CyanIsland
- Great idea. I support moving to
Rover R8 platform and restoring the old version you linked and working from there.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
@ Andy Dingley and CyanIsland: I restored the old version, moved it to Rover R8 platform, and made some edits. Please jump in and make it better. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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 keep. There appears to be some kind of consensus with the agreement of the OP that does not involve deletion or redirection. Editors should feel free to pursue whatever moves and reversions they think appropriate. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Rover 200 Series / 400 Series
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rover 200 Series / 400 Series ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not an article, not a sensible disambig or redirect, not linked from any articles, no purpose now that the two topics have their own articles. So delete. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep and restore to something like this version.
- The point is, as that article explained reasonably well, if floridly, is that the 200 and 400 are pretty much the same car. The article might be clearer if trimmed and renamed to something like the Rover R8 platform. This was a highly significant design in Rover's history. It was sometimes seen as "the first non-crap Rover in decades".
- Should the Mark I and 416 sections be in here? Probably not. They have no relevance to the R8, and it's the R8 which is the notable part of this, and why the article title conflates the two model numbers.
- "Platforms" in the US sense, weren't common in the UK at this time. We either developed unique cars, duplicating the same market sector betwen different factories and marques (BL, I mean you), or else did feeble badge engineering by thinking that swapping the radiator badge and the type of wood in the dashboard veneer fooled anyone. The R8 though was a brave (and successful) attempt to make a reliable Rover by developing a single platform, then using it across the range, even when there were differing numbers of doors and windows on top of it.
- WP, in its usual ignorance, has instead split this article into two as
Rover 200 / 25 and
Rover 400 / 45. Which is easier to write if you're not even in the UK and just watching Top Gear, but it makes no sense for the engineering development of the R8, or the commercial history of Rover's recovery in the '90s.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
16:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Great idea. I support moving to
Rover R8 platform and restoring the old version you linked and working from there.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Goodness, I'd forgotten all about that version - I did a lot of work on that back in the day but was overruled, unfortunately. I fully support something similar as it's much more logical. CyanIsland
- Great idea. I support moving to
Rover R8 platform and restoring the old version you linked and working from there.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
@ Andy Dingley and CyanIsland: I restored the old version, moved it to Rover R8 platform, and made some edits. Please jump in and make it better. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)