Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car dealer scams

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 speedy delete as a blatant copyvio (CSD G12). If someone wants to create a new version free of copyvios, go for it. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car dealer scams

Wrong tone, unencyclopedic. Attack (but probably well justified) on the used car trade. -- RHaworth 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support It was originally lifted straight from one of the external links, and the edit that improved it (removing my suggested speedy deletion) hasn't really fixed the problem. It's hard to see how this can be made encyclopedic.JQ 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Obvious WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. MartinDK 07:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Prune mercilessly and merge to false advertising. Could possibly be encyclopedic, but I'm not sure there's enough to say specifically about used car dealerships to merit a separate article. Shimeru 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Support for merge. We have to delete enough drivel, lets try to keep (some of) the pages that contain real information. Sander123 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment It is a guide on how to buy a used car. It will never be encyclopedic. Do an article on car dealer scams as a notable phenomenon, sourced and in line and up to standard with the other consumer fraud articles and we might have something worthy of Wikipedia. MartinDK 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not misrepresent me. I'm not suggesting that this article is encyclopedic. I am, however, suggesting that it may be worth merging some of this information, pared of its POV and guide-like prose, to an article that is -- and which doesn't yet contain said information. Shimeru 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but completely rewrite. Finding sources should not be too bad, but they will have to be reliable ones. --SunStar Net 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep preferably, renamed as Consumer fraud in car dealerships. I think there is enough specifically to say about the topic and it should be easy to source some of this. Journalists like Jim Mateja write about this sort of thing regularly (very often the consumers naively let themselves be bamboozled, though). At worst merge with the bare-bones car dealership article. My perspective from having a job for a couple of months working inside a car dealership (I was employed by a third party) was incredible shock at what even a high-volume, clean, upscale dealership with a pro-customer reputation (built on friendly advertising) pulled on a daily basis. You have no idea. --Dhartung | Talk 13:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia needs such an article as this. If it needs improvement, edit boldly.Car dealer scams have been written up for at least the past 70 years, so add references from Consumer Reports, Readers Digest, and the numerous consumer guides which have outlined scams from rolling back odometers to "only driven by a little old lady on Sunday" to "let me see if the sales manager will approve this price" to "we have a special financing plan for folks like you." Edison 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is essentially OR and would be difficult to craft into an encyclopedic article. Eusebeus 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is OR, I would support an article that references every scam from the start. The article should exist, but this a the worst of starts as nothing is referenced. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The title of article is inherently POV. The article content is unsuitable as an encyclopedia article, and unsuitable as even the starting point for an article. In a word, unsalvageable. If somebody wants to create a properly cited consumer fraud page for used car sales, I'm all for it, but this article is not the start of such a piece of work. -- Whpq 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would it be limited to used car dealers? New car dealer scams have been widely written up as well in the mainstream press. Edison 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, re-write and re-name as suggested above. Robovski 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with the "keep,but radically prune" consensus. --- Simon Cursitor 07:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Copyvio from [1], so tagged. A few cosmetic rearrangements of the text don't lift the copyright protection. Sandstein 22:47, 15 November 2006 (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.