Talk:Volkswagen Group New Small Family platform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notability[edit]

I have replaced the Notability tag because I question whether this article meets the criteria for WP:Notability. Of the six sources listed,

the 2nd and 4th are self published by Volkswagen, the 1st and 3rd don't even mention the topic, and the 5th and 6th mention the topic only in passing. ENeville (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a article in german from automobil-produktion.de about the NSF platform. Prillen (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And by the way - how can a "high-importance" rated article be considered "not notable"? Prillen (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other (particular when including the history on personal Talk pages). For objective assessment, which allows for consistency in standards with other editors, please address criteria in WP:Notability, e.g. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ENeville (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well. In what way do the Automobil Produktion article not meet ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent"?Prillen (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you appreciate what others see when they look at the article. The biggest problem that comes to mind with the Automobil Produktion source is that it's not referenced in the article. Even if you persuade me in discussion here, how can other editors assess the notability of a topic absent the relevant data? I'm not saying that that source itself establishes notability, or even meets source criteria, but if you think it belongs as part of the article, then put it in. If it's not included, then it's not relevant to this discussion. Otherwise, another editor looks at the article, sees only the six sources currently there, and (by WP:NOTE criteria) concludes the same as I. ENeville (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)