Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-CTDi

I-CTDi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This covers the same topic as Common rail#Acronyms and branding used and does not meet WP:N. It is simply a marketing term, used by Honda in the European market between 2002 and 2008.
The article was created as a redirect and remained one for 16 years, when long-term vandal Sevgilerde tried restoring it. It was then turned back into a redirect by ToadetteEdit, Rosguill, Ponyo, Boleyn, and a fifth editor who has since vanished. "i-CTDi" is simply a badging applied by Honda to ~~two separate diesel engines,~~ the N22A engine~~and an Isuzu engine modified by Honda~~. When Honda updated the N22A engine, they switched to the i-DTEC acronym. Both of these are simply marketing terms used by Honda for their diesel engines, just like Renault's DCi, Mercedes' Cgi, and Hyundai's CRDI - all of which were turned into articles by the same vandal and correctly turned back into redirects. Any of the meaningful content used here would be more suitable at Honda N engine or Kenichi Nagahiro (someone just needs to create that).
Also see D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi for additional, analogous redirects. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I see some interesting history here. A year ago, I BLAR'd the article claiming that it was non notable, but got quickly reverted. Since then, at least two other reviewers agreed that it should be redirected to common rail, but their attempts were both reverted as well. I currently see that Andy Dingley disagreed with the views of three unique reviewers and restored the article to the version made by the sock together with expanding the article. It looks different than what I initially saw so expect a commentary within the next 24 hours. But now I doubt that the history might warrant a report at ANI, who knows? ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I took a review of the article, and frankly enough, I do not know if it will pass WP:GNG or not. I see scholary journals discussing the subject in detail, but they are written by people at Honda, so I do not know whether the journals are independent enough or not. I also see that the first source is from Honda,so it does not establish notability in the context. I also see other websites, but they are in favor of the car models other than the subject itself. Unless it can be justified that at least two sources away from Honda show SIGCOV, Redirect to common rail with no prejudice to page development in the draftspace so as to be submitted via AFC. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, the SAE article is specifically about the N22A engine – it's paywalled but the blurb makes no mention of the i-CTDi marketing name. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be motivated to create an article Kenichi Nagahiro , just so that you can delete it and call them a vandal?

We have policies here based on WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. You are ignoring these in favour of some personal disagreement with another editor. Even if they're guilty of whatever it is you allege, this has now grown to the detriment of the overall project. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH, please. Compare DCi, Cgi, CRDI, D-4D, TDCi, Cdi, CDTi. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or a better message is to both of you to be separate one another and assume good faith. In particular that the comment above does not address the content but rather to the nominator, which is short of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to hide behind 'good faith' when you're the one repeatedly describing anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. First time you did this to me you were taken to ANI over it. You then repeated the same term. So please don't pretend that you didn't know that at least one of us here finds that a deeply offensive allegation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]