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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile ownership[edit]

"Prod" tag removed with the reason "legitimate disambiguation page". I disagree. This is not a disambiguation page in the way that I have seen them used on Wikipedia. This page is more of a Category - or more accurately, a sub-Category of Category:Automobiles. This is not an encyclopedia article. CrypticBacon 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as well-meaning but misguided. dbtfz^talk 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC). Change to weak keep in light of recent revisions. Still seems like a strange topic for an article, but what the hay. dbtfz^talk 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• expand and keep: nice category... or list of articles. This appears to be a draft that may have room for expansion. I like it. If worse come to worse, merge with automobile. However I can see much regional differences, Canadian ownership, US ownership, photo's scans, how to? Where to go? etc.. --CyclePat 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it disturbes me to see that this should probably be an article stub with clean-up tage and attention... not a dissambigation. --CyclePat 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - has some potential. Should probably be kept iff changed to an article about automobile ownership rather than a list of links. Current content is not helpful, especially given Category:Automobiles. -- Jonel | Speak 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As of right now this article has been greatly expanded to take on a different form. However, I am still unsure if it meets quality standards. My main point of contention is that even though the information is helpful and true, it is not encyclopedic. This article is analogous to "Dog ownership" or "Goldfish ownership", with seperate paragraphs on 'selecting your pet', 'feeding your pet', 'grooming your pet'...etc. Vote for Delete, but merge and/or redirect. CrypticBacon 04:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis deletion proposal was based on the disambiguation page by the name of 'automobile ownership' I have took time to expand the page into an actual article and request that it be kept and expanded. Tutmosis 16:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many people who would like to research this topic and who are courious what an ecyclopedia entry concerning it may state. It is useful and informative adn will cater to the needs of quite a few visitors. Besides the deletion request was based on a small dismbig I created. Since then, however, the article has evolved into a real article that is of use to Wiki visitors. Signature^brendel 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This topic has potential, but in the present incarnation appears to require more substance, including the personal pros and cons of actually owning the thing as well as the social and transportation ramifications of private car ownership. Ramayan 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A bit of an odd entry. Possibly more suited to wikibooks? --Interiot 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Current article has some merit, certainly doesn't violate major Wikipedia policy nor satisfy deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article has definitely improved since I nominated it. However, yes, it still feels like an extremely bloated dicdef ("Automobile Ownership is the sum of all the aspects associated with owning an automobile."?) Wikibooks seems like a good place for this article - it is more of an instructional manual or help page for those interested in the topic than it is a true encyclopedia article. This article also flirts with original research. If we allow this page, what it to stop us from creating pages on pet ownership, home ownership, or stock ownership? All of these seem like they would be either disambiguation pages, Categories, or Wikibooks. My vote (not a "real" vote since I'm the nominator) is transfer the material somewhere then redirect the page to Category:Automobiles. CrypticBacon 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Simply within my municipality I can think of much documentation that exist on vehicle registration. I myself have dedicated the last 2 years of my life on how to register a motorized bicycle in Ontario. I have official documentation (published and a lot un-published). There are government publications, books, official correspondances, etc. that exist on how to, what to. There are laws that exist (official publications). I think I could easilly make an encyclopedic article on vehicle registration here in Ontario let alone the rest of the world. Heck I think I could make an article on registration of motorized bicycles registration... oh wait I have made something like that it's called Electric bicycle laws. (not quite the same but it does cover registration!). Wikibooks may be an interest place to expand the article once it becomes to big. (they allow that!) They however don't allow original research (though they are less strick about it at the current moment). If you are interested in starting a book please contact me for I've started a book called How To Ride The Bus. However, on this subject, I consider starting a book at this momment, a type of fork. --CyclePat 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kappa 02:16, 23 February 2006 (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.