Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future car technologies

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 delete. The arguments that this is speculative original research are convincing. The "keep" opinion does not address them. Sandstein 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future car technologies

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

WP:OR fest. One proper reference, plus a bunch of random link dropping everywhere, doesn't save this from being junk. "Future car technologies", or alternate titles such as "Future of the car", is never going to be anything other than crystal balling; either the technology already exists, and is in a car in some form or another, or it doesn't exist yet, and any speculation about it is just that - speculation. For example, the materials section is completely inappropriate - every material in there has been used in a car in some form or another. Ditto the other sections. This survived an AfD in 2007, but heaven only knows how. In short, this article fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL - whilst giving the reader an utterly inaccurate view of the subject. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete One day our cars may be made of unobtainium, or made obsolete by teleportation; but it's obvious that the pages of Popular Science are the place for such speculation, and not here. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; vaguely speculative word-salad, and even the verifiable bits have factual errors. In no way is this a suitable encyclopædia article. bobrayner (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a legitimate subject with a poor article. If someone can put some real work in and find more sources and all the rest of it, I don't see why it should be deleted. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 00:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a legitimate subject at all. It doesn't matter what you put in this article; either the technology already exists, and thus it is not a "future technology", or it is pure speculation and WP:OR. The fact that carbon fibre, which has been used in racing cars since the 1980s, and in some road cars since the 1990s (possibly some in the 1980s as well), is listed in here is just an example of the fallacy of this article. Speculation belongs in the pages of a New Science journal, not an encyclopedia. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 11:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rcsprinter, the article doesn't have "more sources and all the rest of it", so I don't understand why you voted "Keep". If you're saying that somebody in future could hypothetically create an article which has those things, then I would agree, although it is likely to have serious problems with scope; in the meantime, the current article - the article that we're discussing here - doesn't meet our standards, so it should be deleted. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2014 (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.