- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- VR6 engine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is uncited and has been since 2007 (per the tag), it appears to be a questionably notable modifcation of a standard V6. If nothing else it should be merged into the V6 article. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'm no engineer, but this appears to differ from a standard V6 (transverse configuration, firing order etc) and is therefore a separately notable topic. Google returns more than 2 million hits, so even if only 1% of them are valid, it can easily be referenced. Philg88 ♦ talk 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There are citations, although it could certainly use more and it may have a lot of original research. But, as Philg88 noted, the number of hits suggests this could be fixed. -- McDoob AU93 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- snow keep with trout garnish Nomination appears to be WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT and nothing more. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Andy Dingley Please remember
WP:NPA, I saw an article with a bunch of fanboy sources and didn't think they were worthy of wikipedia. Just becasue I don't agree with you dosn't mean i dont understand it or am incompetent, so please dont be an ass.
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember
WP:RANDY. This sort of waste-of-time crappy nomination is one of the reasons why nothing improves any more. Half of those commenting here could probably have used such time to do something positive with this or a similar article, yet they have to waste time instead arguing simply to keep what we have. It's not as if it's a rare engine either. Look out of my front door and I'll see one, I even used to drive one myself. You must have done zero per
WP:BEFORE before nominating this to remain quite so ignorant, then you dismiss those who are familiar with it as inconsequential fanboys.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should consider adding sources instead of arguing with me... I can delete 95% of that article with the reason
WP:BURDEN,
WP:ORIGINAL,
WP:V so get the hell off this deletion discussion, stop attacking ME, and defeat my arguments(by adding sources).
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- So when you don't get to delete an article, you set out to delete 95% of them instead? Is that a theme to all of your editing? Do you find that particularly rewarding?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that you're now carrying out your threat to delete the article piecemeal, and edit-warring to repeat this. WP:POINT much? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- So when you don't get to delete an article, you set out to delete 95% of them instead? Is that a theme to all of your editing? Do you find that particularly rewarding?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should consider adding sources instead of arguing with me... I can delete 95% of that article with the reason
WP:BURDEN,
WP:ORIGINAL,
WP:V so get the hell off this deletion discussion, stop attacking ME, and defeat my arguments(by adding sources).
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember
WP:RANDY. This sort of waste-of-time crappy nomination is one of the reasons why nothing improves any more. Half of those commenting here could probably have used such time to do something positive with this or a similar article, yet they have to waste time instead arguing simply to keep what we have. It's not as if it's a rare engine either. Look out of my front door and I'll see one, I even used to drive one myself. You must have done zero per
WP:BEFORE before nominating this to remain quite so ignorant, then you dismiss those who are familiar with it as inconsequential fanboys.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - It should be cited better but that can be improved any day of the week,
Is the nom going to nominate Earth next ?... – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This must be a joke. I see "citation needed" but I can't see where and why those are needed (should the sentence "The Beetle RSi was the first production vehicle to use the 3.2 litre 24-valve VR6 engine" be proved for real??? That sentence should not be there at all, imho.). The vr6 isn't a further development of another engine, it's a complete different type. If your thinking was right, every type of engine is a further development of the first engine and every article should be merged in one only. So: V8, V6, V4, I4, I6, ... under the generic "internal combustion engine engine" article. Do what you want man, Wikipedia isn't a truthfully source because it's democratic and the Truth is never democratic. I save the page, before the mess up by TurboChargedChiliPepper, for myself. G-Bye :P
- Keep: the VR6 engine is quite different from a V6. I can't see much in the way of content duplication there. OSX ( talk • contributions) 00:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: At the time the VR6 was revolutionary and there are literally hundreds of sources here, I've added a few to be going on with to source some material removed by the AfD nominator and will look at the rest of the article when I can after it is kept. Black
Kitekite (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) - Keep - Clearly a different animal than a standard V6. Passes GNG, as it is significantly covered by multiple pieces of independently published material. See, for example, Jason Cammisa, "The Six-Cylinder Survivor," Auomobile magazine, July 21, 2010. See also: Lewis Kingston, "VW's new 496bhp 3.0-litre VR6 engine," Autocar.co.uk/, May 9, 2013. See also: "VR6 Engine: A Staggering Technology," Karmakanix auto repair. See also: Jason Slu, "Volkswagen’s Next VR6 Engine Could be Twin Turbo," autoguide.com, Sept. 26, 2013. See also: WP:BEFORE. One of the worst nominations of the month, it would seem, copious sources abound in even a cursory search. If the flag for MORE SOURCES offends thee, time is better invested sourcing out a piece than running it through AfD. Carrite ( talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- comment This (and its fallout) has now rocked up at ANI. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Kudos to Carrite for finding excellent sources. Trouts to everyone who got combative. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 24 June 2014 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- VR6 engine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is uncited and has been since 2007 (per the tag), it appears to be a questionably notable modifcation of a standard V6. If nothing else it should be merged into the V6 article. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'm no engineer, but this appears to differ from a standard V6 (transverse configuration, firing order etc) and is therefore a separately notable topic. Google returns more than 2 million hits, so even if only 1% of them are valid, it can easily be referenced. Philg88 ♦ talk 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There are citations, although it could certainly use more and it may have a lot of original research. But, as Philg88 noted, the number of hits suggests this could be fixed. -- McDoob AU93 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- snow keep with trout garnish Nomination appears to be WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT and nothing more. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Andy Dingley Please remember
WP:NPA, I saw an article with a bunch of fanboy sources and didn't think they were worthy of wikipedia. Just becasue I don't agree with you dosn't mean i dont understand it or am incompetent, so please dont be an ass.
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember
WP:RANDY. This sort of waste-of-time crappy nomination is one of the reasons why nothing improves any more. Half of those commenting here could probably have used such time to do something positive with this or a similar article, yet they have to waste time instead arguing simply to keep what we have. It's not as if it's a rare engine either. Look out of my front door and I'll see one, I even used to drive one myself. You must have done zero per
WP:BEFORE before nominating this to remain quite so ignorant, then you dismiss those who are familiar with it as inconsequential fanboys.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should consider adding sources instead of arguing with me... I can delete 95% of that article with the reason
WP:BURDEN,
WP:ORIGINAL,
WP:V so get the hell off this deletion discussion, stop attacking ME, and defeat my arguments(by adding sources).
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- So when you don't get to delete an article, you set out to delete 95% of them instead? Is that a theme to all of your editing? Do you find that particularly rewarding?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that you're now carrying out your threat to delete the article piecemeal, and edit-warring to repeat this. WP:POINT much? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- So when you don't get to delete an article, you set out to delete 95% of them instead? Is that a theme to all of your editing? Do you find that particularly rewarding?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should consider adding sources instead of arguing with me... I can delete 95% of that article with the reason
WP:BURDEN,
WP:ORIGINAL,
WP:V so get the hell off this deletion discussion, stop attacking ME, and defeat my arguments(by adding sources).
CombatWombat42 (
talk)
18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please remember
WP:RANDY. This sort of waste-of-time crappy nomination is one of the reasons why nothing improves any more. Half of those commenting here could probably have used such time to do something positive with this or a similar article, yet they have to waste time instead arguing simply to keep what we have. It's not as if it's a rare engine either. Look out of my front door and I'll see one, I even used to drive one myself. You must have done zero per
WP:BEFORE before nominating this to remain quite so ignorant, then you dismiss those who are familiar with it as inconsequential fanboys.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above - It should be cited better but that can be improved any day of the week,
Is the nom going to nominate Earth next ?... – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This must be a joke. I see "citation needed" but I can't see where and why those are needed (should the sentence "The Beetle RSi was the first production vehicle to use the 3.2 litre 24-valve VR6 engine" be proved for real??? That sentence should not be there at all, imho.). The vr6 isn't a further development of another engine, it's a complete different type. If your thinking was right, every type of engine is a further development of the first engine and every article should be merged in one only. So: V8, V6, V4, I4, I6, ... under the generic "internal combustion engine engine" article. Do what you want man, Wikipedia isn't a truthfully source because it's democratic and the Truth is never democratic. I save the page, before the mess up by TurboChargedChiliPepper, for myself. G-Bye :P
- Keep: the VR6 engine is quite different from a V6. I can't see much in the way of content duplication there. OSX ( talk • contributions) 00:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: At the time the VR6 was revolutionary and there are literally hundreds of sources here, I've added a few to be going on with to source some material removed by the AfD nominator and will look at the rest of the article when I can after it is kept. Black
Kitekite (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) - Keep - Clearly a different animal than a standard V6. Passes GNG, as it is significantly covered by multiple pieces of independently published material. See, for example, Jason Cammisa, "The Six-Cylinder Survivor," Auomobile magazine, July 21, 2010. See also: Lewis Kingston, "VW's new 496bhp 3.0-litre VR6 engine," Autocar.co.uk/, May 9, 2013. See also: "VR6 Engine: A Staggering Technology," Karmakanix auto repair. See also: Jason Slu, "Volkswagen’s Next VR6 Engine Could be Twin Turbo," autoguide.com, Sept. 26, 2013. See also: WP:BEFORE. One of the worst nominations of the month, it would seem, copious sources abound in even a cursory search. If the flag for MORE SOURCES offends thee, time is better invested sourcing out a piece than running it through AfD. Carrite ( talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- comment This (and its fallout) has now rocked up at ANI. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Kudos to Carrite for finding excellent sources. Trouts to everyone who got combative. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 24 June 2014 (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.