Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport utility coupe

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 closed. Other articles were added to this AfD by another editor without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility coupe

Contested PROD. Article is original research and has no references. swa q 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD also comprises of Sport utility convertible, sport utility truck, sport utility sedan and sport utility wagon. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. This expansion attempt was made well after the initial opinions on the AfD were entered, and is malformatted here. The late attempt to bundle is out of process and inappropriate. Townlake (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some evidence turns up that this term is actually used in the industry. Friday (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources out there - this is Google, this is Google News. Obviously some of the sources are blogs and msg boards, but many aren't. Townlake (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close without prejudice. I'm sure Roadstaa's attempt to bundle was made in good faith, but given that the manner it was pursued makes this AfD confusing, it's probably best to close this and reopen the AfD reflecting a proper bundling. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Friday. In any case, if it was used (as the post above suggests it occasionally is), it wouldn't merit anything more than a brief paragraph in Sports Utility Vehicle. -Brilliantine (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a little strange, to me anyway, to lump all SUVs that happen to have only two doors together in one group. But it seems to be a recognized category in the industry. The article needs some references and some editing however. Borock (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Yes, "Googling" the term brings up many hits, but that does not tell the whole story. Besides counting numerous foreign language sites, those that are in English include articles about new cars from reliable sources that describe the following: ... [b]ut calling it a "sport-utility coupe" would make it an SUC and, obviously for marketing reasons, that simply will not do... (See: Niel, Dan. "EX35, in control" The Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2008, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) In other words, the term may be found, but not as part of an actual reference to an established automobile design type. Moreover, marketers attempt to differentiate their models with a unique descriptor making it is part of their BS (Boastful Superlatives). Thus, encyclopedia entries for promotional terms used by automobile design (such as those used by BMW), have to be tempered! The BMW "X" series of models is an example of pure promotional BS by calling them "SUV/crossover/sport utility coupe". What will be added next: a progressive activity sedan or PAS (See: "BMW Trademark Filings: M10, 555, Progressive Activity Sedan," Left lane News, September 25, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) that will make all the current or "traditional" sports sedans as obsolete, un-progressive, and lethargic? I think automakers should realize that their marketing hype and hyperbole backfires (See: "Marketing: Too Much Hype Backfires" ScienceDaily, March 28, 2007, retrieved on August 12, 2008.) and Wikipedia should not be part of their advertising with new separate articles such as this sport utility coupe. — CZmarlin (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SUV specification is fairly old, and it consists of different shapes of vehicle body besides a station wagon style. And articles for different types of SUVs are there to tell us that the SUV specification is somewhat vague. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside, the articles for different SUV types with a certain bodytype increases awareness of the vagueness of the SUV specification. I think of SUV as more of a generic term for a subset of automobiles than a specific type of automobiles which is why we have crossover SUVs and the aforementioned articles about a truck, convertible, sedan and wagon that falls into SUV classification. For instance, the Jeep Wrangler is an SUV which happens to be a convertible and there are plenty more convertibles in the form of an SUV which is why its article was created in the first place. Also, the big three had sport utility coupes such as the Dodge Ramcharger, Ford Bronco, and Chevrolet K5 Blazer; all those names came from names of flagship sports cars of their times in that they came from the Dodge Charger (name), the Ford Mustang (horse) and Pontiac Firebird (fire) respectively; and the words in parenthesis tell the theme of the naming trend of their time. And the fact that names similar to the companies' flagship sports cars of the time were used on modified utility vehicles that were discontinued at about the time the term "sport utility vehicle" was coined may have something to do with how the term was coined. A sports car and a utility vehicle (truck) being used in the same marketing of the big three may have lead to the term coinage; that explains how Wikipedians are underestimating the importance of the article for sport utility coupes. They also had versions in the form of shortbed pickup trucks; which is why sport utility truck was made into an article; also, they had convertible versions so the companies would copy the convertible SUV Jeep made decades ago. --Roadstaa (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sport Utility Truck, delete the others. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is completely original and includes speculation (see descriptions for S-10 Blazer, Dodge Ramcharger, and this former description of the K5 Blazer which I removed.--Flash176 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --— Typ932^{T | C} 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote, please provide a well-formed reason for your opinion Zun aid ©® 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or Merge into SUV if appropriate. My reasoning is two-fold: a) NOTABILITY: This is nothing more than a marketing term until such time as a unique vehicle segment "sport utility coupe" is entrenched in the industry. There is no evidence to show that this has become a new vehicle segment rather than just a marketing gimmick to differentiate manufacturers' products from the crowd b) EDITORIALLY: even so, the over-arching article for most vehicles in this segment would be SUV, as these are all variations on the theme. This would fit nicely into a sub-section of the main SUV article, which could have sections on different niches within the broader vehicle segment. As editors we should always look to place the information in the place that gives it the best context, I feel SUV is that context. Zun aid ©® 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS Tavix (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but SUT - the term has some currency as a marketing moniker (as if SUV wasn't a marketing moniker anyway). Rest is all 100% OR at its worst - i.e. trying to establish something by giving it a WP article. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close. POINT-y muddying of waters causes problems in dealing with it as one article, not a bundle. ZBundle should be nom'd separately. THis really messes up the AfD. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (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.