Talk:Drop Stop

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Article tags

I don't believe the tags are warranted either. This stub article is completely referenced with several reliable secondary sources, including two television news outlets (KABC-TV and KCBS-TV), a notable newspaper (The Miami Herald), a publication from one of the largest American automobile insurers (American Automobile Association) and one of the most notable automobile magazines going (Car and Driver).

As the primary author here, perhaps I am not in the best position to judge objectivity, but I do believe that this article is written from an objective, neutral point of view without any bias or use of promotional language. The article reports faithfully from the given sources and doesn't introduce any point of view.

It is for these reasons I agree that none of the three article tags currently in place are warranted here. The notability threshold is met for this subject, having received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. These sources would also satisfy the neologism tag though I am not even sure this is applicable here as this article is not about a recently coined word but rather the name of a notable product. Even still, the reliable sources given would meet the satisfaction of that requirement. And as far as the blatant advertising claim, are there any specific instances which aren't written in an objective and unbiased style? If so, please point those out here and let's discuss. Alternatively, feel free to go ahead and rewrite those instances.

Please let me know if I can collaborate on this article any further. Happy to help, though my Wikipedia time is limited these days. Thanks! :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 04:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple days have passed without any rebuttal here. I am going to remove the article tagging for now. Please feel free to continue this discussion without me. I will try to check in from time to time. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

This is like a marketing ad.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? SueDonem (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of added comment about gap in some Toyota Sienna's being too large

I added the comment but Sue reverted it as not supported by the ref. The ref at the end of the sentence was preexisting and was for the cars with gaps too narrow. I lack a published ref for it being too wide on some Sienna's, but have confirmed it personally. That is the type of info that is hard to come by in a published reference. Is there a way to include such factual and potentially useful info even though it derives from independent research, or do the encyclopedic standards simply preclude it? If the latter, so be it. Techguy95 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a central policy against original research. All article content should be verifiable in a reliable source. Some other editor on Wikipedia may be able to go out to their car and fit these things into one of the cars which Car & Driver says is too tight, but that doesn't mean that they can then use that original research to remove the information because they have personally disproved what Car & Driver has said. SueDonem (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct and I should have realized - thanks. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page with my mistake, is it ok if I delete our chat from the Talk page? Techguy95 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it bothers you. I don't mind. Leaving it here could serve as "good advice" for another editor with a similar question. SueDonem (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]