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.
This article seems like it ought to be an encyclopedic subject. Someone has gone through a lot of effort to fill in all the information.
However... this article is a pretty clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGUIDE. The only citations are to manuals. An IP just edited in what I'm mostly sure is a joke, and now I'm trawling through this reference to find out if it is. I feel there is little short of applying some WP:TNT that can save this article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is like the motor oil or transmission fluid articles we had at AfD a while ago, nice collection of technical data, most of it from primary sourcing. Wiki isn't the Hayes manuals, nor should it try to be. No sources found, most of what is found is simply service bulletins and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE says data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. If that cannot be done, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, and should be deleted. ––FormalDude(talk)12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word indiscriminate has connotations of randomness, uncohesiveness and lack of context. The article is extremely regular (lists transmissions and their ratios) and puts it in the context of which vehicles the transmissions are in. What it lacks is many references. So, it should be tagged with ((refimprove)) or similar to encourage editors to add references. The way forward is to add references - deletion of useful information would be a step backwards. Stepho talk00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there's a serious prospect for sourcing it - I'm sorry, but I feel this is one of those topics where you'd be better posting this information on your own website where you can present it yourself in your own words, talk about your credentials as an expert and explain your experience and expertise. That's a more realistic goal. With no sourcing, we have no way to verify that any of this stuff is true. If an IP makes a change replacing one unsourced statement with another, we have no idea who's right. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a how-to article - there are no instructions to follow. Otherwise we would have to delete almost all of the engine and transmission pages for all car companies. Stepho talk23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... I don't really like parts lists, I think they should be deleted if they are not parts that have received some kind of media coverage or coverage in books other than repair manuals and parts lists. On the other hand I dislike deleting anything at all, because someone might find it useful. The issue is that one begets another and they proliferate because the standard has been set. If there are other parts catalogs of items that don't meet WP:GNG they should probably be considered as well. This kind of thing is best placed on a Wiki dedicated to its topic. If this is allowable why not just list all the parts in all cars on Wikipedia? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious notability, more befitting a different kind of site than Wikipedia, but there are probably many articles like this. WP:NOT should include "not a parts catalog" if WP:NOTDATABASE doesn't cover that. If this is not something mentioned in the media or publications other than repair manuals and parts lists (particularly the individual parts listed here) it is not notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2023 (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.