Currently closed as no consensus While at the beginning of the discussion there was clearly a lack of consensus, towards the end, general opinion swayed towards merging the non-speculative information into Apple and leaving a redirect because while the subject seems to be possibly notable, there is not yet enough confirmed information for an entire article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No action. Deletion discussions can end in two ways: delete, or not-delete. A DRV is not required to change between the various forms of not-delete outcome. These can be implemented via WP:BB or discussions on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The !votes saying the article violates WP:Crystal seem to me utterly contrary to that policy which says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about [...] whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Many people made the claim (and others stated that WP does not report rumour, even if reliably reported) so I'd like to check whether I am mistaken. The title was certainly questionable because article didn't seem to cite any reliable source using the term "iCar" but Google News isn't now sharing that reticence. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not for Things didn't go my way so I'm going to take another shot at it. FWIW, I !voted to redirect, but looking at the discussion, closing it as NC seems perfectly reasonable. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Though I frown on non-admin closes in general, there was, literally, no consensus from such a split discussion. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion discussions can end up in several ways, not just limited to delete/not delete--a close of merge is also a possible outcome, and a close of redirect is also appropriate, with the material either deleted or not deleted before redirection. Of there can be no clear consensus about what to do, which was the case here. That doesn't necessarily prevent a merge, but my personal opinion is that enough material will rapidly accumulate that it will just have to be unmerged rather soon. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse personally I tend not to care much for these sort of articles, even when there is enough to say they tend to be a magnet for all manner of speculation, but this isn't about my opinion, it's what's in the discussion where there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deleting the article. Apple electric car project should be deleted because while rumored are fun, there has been no official word from Apple. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frmorrison: a note on the sometimes cryptic shorthand we use here. When you write Endorse, that means, I agree with the way this was originally closed. From the rest of your comment, I don't beieve that's the case. I suspect the phrase you're looking for to summarize your argument is Overturn to delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - merge/redirect vs. keep is mostly an editoral issue, so headcount counts for a lot, and applying policy is nuanced. WilyD 14:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus. Nakon 05:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
