Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptera 2 Series

Aptera 2 Series

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

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article about a future product is based entirely on press releases and web sites from the manufacturer. There is no sustained independent coverage in serious journalistic or scholarly sources. There are passing mentions in a couple blogs, which is insufficient. See also WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of announcements of future products. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The Aptera design is notable for several things: three wheels, low aerodynamic drag, prototype was a finalist in the Automotive X Prize, many 3rd party media writeups (Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, EV journals). It should be given the same weight as other concept cars at the moment. That said, it could indeed use cleanup; much of the detail is obsolete, from before the Detroit takeover when it was still a media darling. The Aptera fanbase which would have done the editing has dispersed due to the company's mismanagement. Surely there are other low-hanging fruit, like the demise of the Triac (car)? --IanOsgood (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those issues and all that drama (bankruptcies, takeovers, redesigns, slipped ship dates, etc...) is typical of vaporware, and it's exactly why pages about future products that exist mostly in the form of press releases and rumored venture capital should be deleted on sight without solid, critical reporting from mainstream publications, based on real research carried out by a professional. Paraphrasing a press release is fluff. Many blogs and some magazines exist to entertain their readers with pie in the sky inventions. Somebody faxes a press release and a CAD-CAM rendering to Popular Science or Wired and they write a credulous blurb about it. All in good fun, but that's not encyclopedic because it isn't knowledge, it's just somebody's promise about what they hope to do some day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I agree with IanOsgood that the Aptera 2 Series warrants inclusion, not deletion. It qualifies under both WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH. The [New York Times] covered an Aptera visit less that 1 year ago. Every Automotive X Prize competitor gets consideration under WP:NRVE. I also agree with Dennis Bratland that Aptera the vehicle is not likely to be produced in large numbers any time soon. That is our shared opinion. The fact is that Aptera Motors is an on-going business, and the Aptera 2 Series can be revived, however unlikely that seems. Let us not delete Aptera articles prematurely. Let us err on the side of inclusion. Devrandy (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They are not just vaporware with press releases and promises. They are still a functioning company that has 5 prototype vehicles that are driving around San Diego on a daily basis. Sure, they are on the brink of bankruptcy, but there is still a chance that this revolutionary vehicle may make it to market. I agree with the comments of the two dissenters above. For these reasons, I think we should keep this information available to the public. If the company should disappear without producing any salable products, then I agree with putting them down as a footnote on a page regarding efficient aerodynamic vehicles.--Palmer md (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Devrandy (above) should be aware that enlisting employees of this company to create single purpose accounts in order to attempt to "vote" in favor of your company's article, or creating sock puppet accounts for the same purpose is extremely obvious, and it is counterproductive. The best you can hope for is that the admins will ignore your "votes". And it's not a vote anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stick to the rules and not attack the people who post here. I have absolutely no affiliation with Aptera other than I really liked the concept car when I first discovered it in 2007. You can trace my posts and/or ask me yourself, but I promise you and everyone else who reads this that I have no affiliation with Aptera.--76.29.168.121 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]