Talk:List of automobiles known for negative reception

This list is non-notable

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, particularly opinions (even if referenced) and speculation. CZmarlin (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I too have similar reservations, but it seems other lists based on the same premise are deemed notable: List of automobiles notable for negative reception#See also. Take a look at the discussion pages for some of these lists. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the fact other lists of "negatives" exist can be used as an argument to keep this one. We need to judge it on its individual merits. I agree with CZmarlin here, Wikipedia aims to a neutral point of view and an article based only on arbitrary lists with zero objective analysis or surveys isn't really neutral. In the best case scenario, the info could be included in each car article to show the past and present reception of the models, although I really doubt of the value of "revisionist" reviews made dozens of years after the models' introduction. Besides, the list is a collection of opinions dealing almost exclusively with the American market, as many of the cars listed actually had positive receptions outside US. Wikipedia needs to keep a worldwide view in each subject. If this list is kept, it surely should be renamed to something like "List of automobiles notable for negative reception in the United States". Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This category could be "bait" for countless edit wars...there are devoted fans of the Cadillac Cimmaron, AMC Pacer, Edsel, Morris Marina, Trabant, Chevrolet Vega, Vauxhall Chevette, Ford Pinto, Rover 800, Alfasud Arna...this list could go on with hundreds of examples. The list could also be a place for people to vent about a crappy car they had...this just sounds like a bad idea just waiting to block an empassioned editor willing to martyr themselves on the merits of the Chevrolet Citation, Datsun B210, and the BMW Isetta...one more example...anyone remember the User:Barnstarbob incident?... (Regushee (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

Thank you OSX, Urbanoc, and Regushee for noting the multiple issues with this apparently random "list" of cars. There is no objective standard for inclusion of the models to this list. I have "contributed" two that appear to be lacking - the 1 million rusting Honda Civics and the 11 million deceptive VW Diesel-powered cars. By any definition, they qualify for "negative reception" in the marketplace. However, there are many similar examples that enthusiasts will object to having them appear in such a list. In summary, this article is not "notable" for inclusion in a fact-based encyclopedia. Please start the process for its removal. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added the tag to have it removed(Regushee (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Main question I have then, what makes this a non-notable list that blows a big hole in W:NPOV, but not List of video games notable for negative reception or List of films considered the worst? By this metric those two articles need to be deleted, too. Karrmann (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If those lists can stick around as long as they have then we should give this article a chance to be fixed up to WP standards. I don't have time to babysit this page 24/7 but I have seen a few additions that I can see being taken out. Like someone added the Lincoln Blackwood and I think that can be taken out, for example. No sources to back up why it should be included. It just flopped in the marketplace. Nobody says it is one of the worst cars of all time, so off it goes. Karrmann (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I also like how CZmarlin spent a whole day vandalizing this page just to make his case that this article needs to be deleted, putting such in his edit summaries. I will remember that next time he writes a new article. I don't think it would be fair to have this deleted just because he decided to take a personal vendetta against it. We can take this arbitration if we have to. Karrmann (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Karrmann, you have answered your own concerns about this "list" by stating that I have "vandalized" this page by adding products that had negative reception. It appears that you have your own definition of "automobile with negative reception." If there is one best metric for a negative reaction of a product in the marketplace, it would have to be the lack of consumer acceptance. The Lincoln Blackwood (that you describe as "it just flopped in the marketplace") is a perfect example of an "automobile notable for negative reception" that should be included in this list. The cars were so bad that dealers had to unload them at thousands off the sticker price and the manufacturer quickly axed its production. On the other hand, the various modern "revisionist" opinions about particular cars that were originally highly ranked, do not change the actual historical facts about those vehicles. Lastly, the existence of lists of negative films or video games have nothing to do with this article. Wikipedia articles must stand on their own and have a Neutral point of view. Perhaps you could start a list of List of foods notable for negative reception? There are numerous subjects that do not belong in an encyclopedia, this is one of them. I will not bother to address your claim that I have a "personal vendetta." Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

While the article lists many vehicles that have a dubious reputation, whether it be a particular marketing approach, styling, function, and so forth, the biggest problem with this article is that it sparks debate on why each car is here, and the market reaction to the vehicle short-lived presence before it was cancelled. This article incites edit wars. Some editors may consider statements about a particular vehicle as a challenge, for various reasons, and it will contribute to lack of civility. The other examples listed "List of video games notable for negative reception or List of films considered the worst" are also under suspicion, and their validity should also be reviewed. As an example of what this article is in conflict, please see Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX. Again, This article incites edit wars. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists (Regushee (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

CZMarlin, let me remind you what you changed the header of this article to read:

"The following is an arbitrary list of automobiles notable for negative reception in the U.S. market with no objective standard for their inclusion. Some of the models listed have not undergone impartial analysis or scientific surveys as to their actual performance in their particular market segments. The reasons for their inclusion in publications or books are often based on random musings, attempts at humor, or sweeping generalizations. They have most often been "judged" for their poor critical reception, poor customer reception, safety defects, and/or poor workmanship. Some of these cars were popular on the marketplace or were critically praised at their launch, but have earned a strongly negative retroactive reception, while others are not considered to be intrinsically "bad", but have acquired infamy for safety or emissions defects that damaged the car's reputation. Many of the cars of this list earned high marks for their pioneering technology and innovations, but some of these advances were too early for the mass market to accept. Many models have earned "revisionist" perceptions based on current opinions on cars and not in how they were considered back in their time."

Regardless of your opinion of this article, this kind of behavior is flat-out uncalled for. Just because you don't like an article doesn't mean you have to right to deface it to help your case. I'm not even dismissing all your criticism, I'm just angered by the style of conduct you've engaged in throughout this process. I don't like Taylor Swift, if I deface her article with my POV about how much she sucks and how annoying she is, can I get it deleted too? Is that how the deletion process works at Wikipedia? You should have just come straight to the talk page and expressed your concerns about the article here. I will admit that when I posted this article I was like, "Ill throw it out there and see whether or not it works." I'll concede the point that there is a great potential for edit warring. List of films considered the worst has had enough of a problem with it that it is semi-protected. Its been a decade that I've been an editor and I have dealt with a ton of edit wars with various users who have wanted to glorify their favorite cars. I still remember User:Wiarthurhu, who was so militantly hell-bent on inserting his motor magazine-style POV edits into articles that my conflict with him eventually found its way to the highest levels of Wikipedia arbitration, and it only ended when he exhausted the last of the admins' patience and they handed him an indefinite block. Even the shittiest cars have their enthusiasts and defenders. Hell, years ago I remember me and a couple other editors had an issue at the Zastava Koral article because some Serbian guy kept trying to rewrite it into a piece praising the Yugo as the greatest car of all time. Karrmann (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I do want to state for the record though that my opinion of this matter is that we should consult with the editors that watch over/constructed the articles List of video games notable for negative reception and List of films considered the worst and get their opinion. See if they think this article can be fixed up to meet WP standards or if this is a topic where such an article would never work and thus should be binned. I think they would be the best fit to cast the deciding votes. Karrmann (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I messaged four editors active in maintaining those articles and asked them for their input on the article. Let's see what they think. Karrmann (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I also want to just disclose that I (User:Karrmann) have migrated over to this account. Reattacollector (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the discussion hinges on WP:LSC: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. ...When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true:

• If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
• Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
• Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?"

So while lists of subjective things will always be troublesome from those not familiar with Wikipedia policies, are the criteria such that people familiar with Wikipedia policies of WP:V / WP:OR / WP:RS will be able to objectively and unambiguously look at the sourcing and state "yes, those sources objectively meet the criteria" / "no those don't meet the objective criteria"- At List of films considered the worst - "are there multiple experts on film who consider this film the worst?" If someone brings a set of 5 experts on film who all call the film "the worst" objectively the criteria are met. The criteria here seem to still be subjective about a subjective subject. Then from an WP:OR / WP:GNG aspect, the objective criteria also need to be something that exists out in the reliable sources, it is not just a set of parameters that Wikipedians created. As it stands, this article does not seem to meet those criteria, but possibly could. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So I got pinged about this article due to being involved with the "List of video games notable for negative reception". First off, I think the PROD should be taken down. "Multiple issues" is too vague and doesn't provide the reasoning to delete the article. Second, I think its possible for this to be a well made article. Might need to be listed by decades to make it easier to navigate. But there seems to be enough reliable sources to back up some of these cars being notable for its terrible quality. The Ford Pinto is on there. That's a poster child.

But there has to be a criteria in what is considered the first, as TRPoD pointed out. Once that's established this article can be more set. GamerPro64 13:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker from Sergecross73's talk page. I've de-PROD'd, as the rationale is invalid in my eyes and I believe the list can be improved, as GamerPro64 mentioned. I have little more to add to what TRPoD and GamerPro64 have said though. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me reset the discussion: the video games page had recently gone through reforms, and we implemented a stricter criteria for defining what we can list. To be listed on the page, the game must have a minimum number of reliable sources with examples of negative reception (i.e. reviews, retrospective), ViperSnake151  Talk  15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the video game list has survived 5 AFDs at this point, and I'm pretty sure the respective music one, which I also have maintained (a little), has survived them too, so there is a precedent for these types of articles. As Viper alluded to, I set up certain inclusion criteria to help clean up the video game article some, perhaps doing the same here could also alleviate some of the concerns here. I'm not well versed in car stuff, on-wiki or real life, but I could at least assist on a Wikipedis policy/consensus level. But I do think it needs to be an issue of cleanup, not deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Karrmann, CZmarlin didn't vandalise the article. He added sourced information. You can consider his edits as disruptive and pointy if you like, but the examples he included followed your own loose definition for "inclusion" here, as stated on lede: "(...) poor customer reception, safety defects, and/or poor workmanship. For inclusion, these automobiles have either been referred to in popular publications as the worst of all time, or have received negative reviews across multiple publications." Games and cars aren't really comparable, except for the fact that they are both products of human technology, so I personally don't think the work of the guys there is relevant here beyond a general way. In general, my concerns about the article (subjectivity, lack of a worlwide perspective) are still there... --Urbanoc (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow, how're these articles so different exactly? As you say, they're both physical products created by man, and it's about compiling exceptionally bad reception on them. If Metacritic aggregated reviews about cars, they'd be exactly the same. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73. Sorry to disagree but I don't think games (video games as we're talking about them) can be considered physical objects per se. They are of course limited by storage devices and consoles, but they're primarily a software product while cars are a "hardware" one. A game quality is judged by different technical standards than cars. In games, focus is more on things such as gameplay, graphics or artistry and is by definition more subjetive than a car (more similar to a movie or a song). Cars, at least in theory, are judged based on more objectively measurable aspects as operational range, speed, power output, torque, reliability or ergonomics (although also for some more subjective aspects as design or perceived quality). A fact you mentioned hit a point for me. There isn't a reviews aggregator for vehicles, so there's no objective way to determine if X model has really more negative opinions than Y. It's all based on debatable things as "X number of negative reviews we found". So, the definition of what a panned car is lies in a person, in this case the article creator, that decides if criticisms are "enough" for inclusion. Another big difference between cars and games is that games, as consoles are more or less the same all over the world (except for a few cases), are pretty homogeneous worldwide. In contrast, cars are engineered for different markets, with different needs and aspirations (the car that an average Indian consumer or reviewer would consider "good enough" probably is an atrocity for their American counterparts). Some of the cars listed on the article were sold in the wrong market (USA) because of a bad marketing strategy or hopes for the success of frugal cars after the enery crisis, and didn't meet the consumers' expectatives. However, they were successful in its core markets (top sellers, winners of a lot of awards if that matter...), they just happen to have a lot of bad memories between American consumers (or legends on that, as they never had sales comparable to Japanese models), but they only have a somehow "notable" negative reception in that specific country.

Changing the subject, I consider that the articles and some books attacking the cars are more like personal opinions or essays without a real, objective analysis. They criticise them with modern standards (as the AMC Gremlin, a reasonable car for its era) and make analogies without sense.

In brief, this article will be subjective in any case and I'm clearly against it, but if it's kept, it should follow some clear rules pretty different to those of games:

1) Sales performance against projected sales (a more or less objective way of determining market reception) should be the primary criteria. That's a info difficult to find, but it's the only clear-cut indicator.

2) If reviews are used as only practical solution, they must be contemporary to the car in question (as cited on books, for example). Retrospective looks are nonsense as they don't really determine if a car is "notable" for negative reception, it only says some journalists don't like it.

3) As this article isn't written with a worldwide perspective but it isn't aimed at a specific market either, each subsection title should have the name of the market (or markets) where the car had negative reception (e.g. "X (United States)"), at present is really confusing and misleading. --Urbanoc (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with with any of your points or concerns, there are differences between the two, and the concerns are valid...I just feel that they're more "challenges in keeping the article accurate/appropriate" than "reasons to delete". You're free to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD if you like, but I don't think you'll get the result you'd want, considering the track record found at here or here. I feel like creating inclusion criteria to clean up the article is a better way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Sergecross73. I read the discussions on the articles you show me, but they didn't help to ease my concerns, quite the contrary. My opinion is that if all the content in an article or section is so subjective that can be challenged in basic details through discussions, consensus and interpretations there's no way it really can comply with the neutral point of view and even questions its notability. Of course, consensus can overrun policy, but content based only in negatives or positives (except if measurable) is really borderline for me. It's something more for an essay or opinion piece than for an encyclopaedia. You already know my opinion on that. I don't see how is better to create a catch-all article than including the content, if relevant, in each subject article (a "List of cars notable for positive reception" or "List of cars considered the prettiest/ugliest" may follow...). However, I agree you're right in saying that there's little chance this article can be deleted through AFD (at least at this point), but my concerns remain. As for the criteria I suggest if the article is kept, I already wrote it, but maybe I wasn't clear enough, so here goes again.:

1) Sales performance against projected sales (a more or less objective way of determining market reception) should be the primary criteria. That's an info difficult to find, but it's the only clear-cut indicator.

2) If reviews are used as only practical solution, they must be contemporary to the car in question (as cited on books, for example). Retrospective looks are nonsense as they don't really determine if a car is "notable" for negative reception, it only says some journalists don't like it.

3) As this article isn't written with a worldwide perspective but it isn't aimed at a specific market either, each subsection title should have the name of the market (or markets) where the car had negative reception (e.g. "X (United States)"), at present is really confusing and misleading.

There's no point in editing the article without knowing the opinion of the original creator, as he probably would revert me because we have abysmal differences. And, seeing the other lists, almost every entry should be discussed separately. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a second section specifically discussing inclusion criteria. Could you chime in there to add your feedback against (Or in addition to) the initial suggestion(s)? -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess this may belong in the section below, but it would be kind of random since it hasn't been brought up there yet, but FYI, while I don't personally oppose having poor sales being one of the criteria, usually that's not used, because its used in separate/different sales articles. See examples like List of commercial failures in video gaming and List of box office bombs (film). Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I'll say again, I disagree games/films and cars are really comparable and I already give my reasons to that. If we talk about a car "reception" we must speak first of the market reception and after that of the reviews (in this case, the reviews criticising it), especially considering that a significant number of the "reviews" cited are more lame intents on humour than real, objective criticisms ("People made fun of the Edsel – Ford's $400 million mistake – but its resemblance to a chrome-splattered bus station urinal..." " The Le Car is just a big pile of crap. Sorry..." "though it was critical that said prospects consume a minimum of three double-strong Long Island Iced Teas before suggesting a ride back to your parents' basement..." and so on). --Urbanoc (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

In that case then the next step is forming a rigid criteria to determine how cars can be included in this article. I think the good first one is that the car has to have reliable sources. Say, three sources either panning the car or naming it as one of the "worst cars of all time" would be a start. What other criteria should there be? Reattacollector (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've copied this from the video game list version:

I think the first two bullets work here. The subject needs to be notable in it's own right and have it's own article. The second bullet is currently asking for 5 reliable sources for video games, but we can start at 3 here. Regarding the 3rd bullet, as someone who doesn't have a high interest in autos, is there any sort of recognized "Metacritic" for cars? If not, that bullet may not be applicable here. Bullet four needs reworded to be applicable to autos, but the basic idea is that no-name minor cars that no one really knew about or expected anything of should be excluded. And number 5 I think can apply here without any real rewording, though a auto-specific example is needed. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. That one will apply. Car has to have its own article.
   
2. I agree with three reliable sources to start. One has to specifically name the car as one of the worst of all time, or in the case of newer cars (such as the 2007 Chrysler Sebring) a reviewer has to say it is one of the worst cars on the market at the time (as Jeremy Clarkson did).
   
3. There is no Metacritic equivalent for cars. Additionally I don't think the idea of a car earning a positive review excluding it should apply here, since a few of these cars earned critical acclaim at launch, only to end up earning a negative reputation later on down the line. The Chevrolet Corvair was critically acclaimed, but is now infamous as the car that was so unsafe it lead to a new focus on auto safety that resulted in the creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and mandatory government crash testing and other safety standards. The 1971 Chevrolet Vega was also acclaimed and even was named the Motor Trend Car of the Year, but is now widely considered to be one of the worst cars of all time because of its egregious quality and reliability issues. The Vega was so poorly made/engineered that most didn't even last a decade in service; by the late 1970s they were being scrapped at such a high rate that junkyards were refusing to take them. Or in the case of the Chevrolet Citation, it was also critically acclaimed at launch, but as was eventually revealed by Car and Driver, that is because the press was supplied with special re-engineered cars that were much better made and didn't contain the myrid drivability issues the regular production cars contained and once on the road the Citation quickly gained a negative reputation among consumers.
   
4. Agree that should be a criteria. The car has to have been a major, mass-market vehicle that was reviewed (and panned) by major publications. Some 1970s electric car from the third-world that sold 300 units won't count, because of course it's going to be horrible. On the Top Gear special "The Worst Car In the History of the World", Jeremy Clarkson and James May set as criteria that the bad cars listed had to have been expensive and from a major manufacturer with a positive reputation, and thus the bad car would have been initially expected to be really good. They eventually selected the Lexus SC430 as their "worst car in history".
   
5. Agree that the car being involved in some kind of controversy or bad press should help its inclusion. Again the Chevrolet Corvair fits this criteria due to Unsafe At Any Speed. Both the Corvair and Vega were slammed by former General Motors executive John DeLorean in his 1979 book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors. The Renault Dauphine was so poorly received in the United States that Renault launched an ad campaign apologizing for it after they launched its replacement. The Pontiac Aztek was publicly criticized by GM executive Bob Lutz - who was hired shortly after its launch - who described it as resembling "an angry kitchen appliance". If a car is so bad that the people who made it admit that it is bad, that should basically guarantee its inclusion.

I also agree that a car has to be pitched on the talk page and approved by consensus before its inclusion. I already removed some cars from the list - such as the Dodge Omni and Pontiac Fiero, - since their inclusion would be iffy enough to be disputed. As per the criticism that this article is United States-centric, that is simply because I wrote this article and I'm American. We will only solve this issue by getting editors from other countries to suggest and contribute cars from their necks of the woods that fit the criteria. Reattacollector (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, to me, it seems like most of the criteria can be applied, with some alterations to exact numbers, to this article. The exception being point number 3. I don't know the industry quite well enough to be sure, but I don't believe there's an aggregator comparable to Metacritic with cars. I mean, developer/publisher often make big decisions based off of MC scores. I don't believe there's an equivalent (though I'm open to being shown otherwise if there is one.) But 4 inclusion criteria would still be a good amount too. In the section above, Urbanoc proposed being a financial loss in some capacity could be a criteria. I'm not particularly for that one, as it seems like "critical failures" and "commercial failures" are usually explored separately on Wikipedia, but if there's a consensus to use that outside of my stance, don't let me hold the process back. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I found three options for an automobile aggregation website to use for this. alaTest, Epinions, and MotorMouths. Might be worth looking at. GamerPro64 03:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Epinions just seems to aggregate user-reviews, if I'm reading it right, so I don't think that one would be usable, but alaTest seemed to be more comparable. I have no idea if the industry values them or not though... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be little basis of applying metrics for games and movies to evaluate a totally unrelated product. I appreciate ideas brought in by contributors from other fields, but a durable product and major purchase for consumers is much different from short-term entertainment. Although I have no expertise in either of these products, I think that the needs of a typical video gamer in Wyoming could be similar to one in Manhattan, but there are probably some differences in satisfying movie goers in India compared to those in Italy. I mention this because automobiles do more than "entertain" consumers. Automobiles are completely different and far more complex in contrast to these two entertainment services. Automobiles provide numerous uses and services for their owners that may be horrendously negative to someone else. For example, many "experts" describe certain sports cars as the epitome of automobiles and are quick to put down minivans and work trucks. However, a large family will find no use for an expensive high-performance sports model, nor will a consumer who needs to tow a trailer or haul construction equipment off-road. In other words, there are huge differences not only among different market segments, but also among the various consumers of vehicles. These are not factored in the various opinions expressed by sources evaluating the worst (or best) automobiles. Moreover, what may have been an advanced feature and a car perfect for a particular time, may turn out to be viewed in a negative light after the passage of many years. That is why the idea of using a certain number of sources panning a particular model is not a valid measure. This is exemplified by a study of the cars listed by some of these purported experts. They typically provide only "seat-of-the-pants" opinions; with no evidence of any research or analysis they used to include the cars named by these sources. An example is the list of The Ten Worst Cars We Want To Own by Jalopnik. Such sources and experts such as Jeremy Clarkson do not make for a valid list of the worst or negative reception cars. Their irreverent humor may be entertainment for some readers, but such sources do not offer any facts that are the foundation for an encyclopedia article. CZmarlin (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

To throw out a quick response though, what about professional reviews by sites such as Edmunds, Cars, Kelly Bluebook, etc? Or award groups such as JD Power? To say there's no metrics by which to judge automobiles outside of humor-oriented personalities wouldn't be exactly true. While the examples I've used here may be mostly contemporary, they illustrate that there are objective sources available. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ferret, My observations were not imply that there are no objective sources for automobile reviews. You list several, but point out that they are contemporary. Therefore, this list would have to be Contemporary automobiles notable for negative reception. As it is, most of the "references" for the models named on the current version of this list exemplify the entertainment, revisionist, and pure opinion types of sources. I will not repeat them here, but many of the quotes justifying the cars on this list represent lame attempts at wit and cleverness. The various books and magazine articles with "worst" cars or automotive "atrocities" are written for entertainment purposes. They do not represent unbiased research, but they inspire contributors to keep adding the various cars mentioned in those "sources" to this list. If there is requirement of certain number of mentions of sources panning a particular car, then there will be numerous "me-too" websites that regurgitate content. A "list cars to avoid" Google search results in about 135 million hits. A far better source of information is something like Car and Driver "10 Used Cars to Avoid feature" article. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and is not to serve as a soapbox. In short, this list does not meet these guidelines. CZmarlin (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not dictate that nothing negative be written about something, only that we maintain a fair balance of significant views of reliable sources. If sources are overwhelmingly negative, then a negative view is what Wikipedia should portray. The prose itself should present those negative views in an unbiased fashion though, of course. -- ferret (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. While sources criticising something are acceptable per the neutral point of view policy, sources simply making fun of something, especially if they're devoid of all objective research or don't make a point of why is the criticism valid, are not. And if we really consider the balance between positive and negative opinions in the reliable sources available, many of the cars in this list shouldn't ever be included. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So to me, the next question would be, is (for example) Jalopnik even a reliable source? Many Gawker Media sites are viewed at best as situational. If it's not reliable, it's moot what they say. Other publications though may not be so easy to dismiss, such as Time.com and Popular Mechanic. Not using bad sources is fine, but to me that doesn't leave this list empty. Let's pull the Jalopnik types out and see what's left to start. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think there is a binary, yes or no, answer to some of these sources. I was referring to clearly obvious improper examples, such as statements by a popular entertainer that a particular car "was built by someone who was being deliberately stupid or who was four years old" as well as accusing a reader who buys one as "so window-lickingly insane that you'd be banned from handling anything other than crayons." This provides zero information, other than to confirm the author's own poor judgment. It is one thing to criticize on the basis of facts, but another to slander people to achieve cheap laughs. Although using humor to attract an audience, some articles posted on Jalopnik provide thoughtful information. Therefore, I think the validity of using references depends on the specific article. Likewise, some criticisms are blatantly false must not used in an encyclopedia. An example is the "1970 Gremlin's lack of disc brakes, radial tires, ..." when the truth is that disk brakes were available as an option (and it was just 1968 that the Cadillac Eldorado got front disk brakes as standard for a heavy, 472 cu in (7.7 L) powered luxury car priced several times the subcompact Gremlin) and it was not until 1983 that radial tires became standard on all U.S. manufactured passenger cars. These types of "revisionist" opinions do not add value to WP articles. Furthermore, I think it is difficult to also provide a blanket pass to all articles in "respected" publications. An example are "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time" posted by Time that does not provide any metrics for their inclusion on the list, other than some are considered "ugly" by the author. The design of a car may be polarizing to some, but as in all cases, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and should not be the basis for judging which vehicles are worst. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these issues occur in reception sections and lists across Wikipedia, I fail to see how its somehow unworkable here. Yes, there's going to be "revisionists" or "subjective reviews without any metrics" - this happens with any media or product - but you either remove your personal feelings and go with what the reliable source says, or you find a consensus to not use the content. I refuse to believe that, if you remove all of the troubling sources, you'd be left with no sources to work with/meet the policy needs of the website. I wish some of the car editors would actually try to suggest some criteria rather than all this "No no, this will never work" responses, as I find it unlikely that the article is going anywhere... Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest including something about the publication dates of the assessments span at least 5 years so that we know assessment of "worst" is a long term phenomena and not just a passing trend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• That's an interesting idea. I like it, seems like that would be a step in the right direction for addressing some of the concerns about the article. Would it make the list exclude cars newer than 5 years then? Or would they be exempt? Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the criteria that the vehicle must be at least five years old. I'm not sure about the reviews though, because we don't apply that to anything else. On all other articles, we use period reviews to showcase the reception the work has received, good or bad. Reattacollector (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the assessments about the sources. I've seen that all the sources are bunk because we can't use reviews as a source for praise/criticism for a car because they are just opinions used for "entertainment". If that is the case, then we must no longer use Roger Ebert reviews in the film articles, because that is what Jeremy Clarkson is more-or-less the equivalent of in the automotive world. Love him or hate him, he is one of the (if not the) most popular and well known automotive journalists in the world right now and his opinion holds a significant amount of weight. He is a top selling author and his reviews are featured in major newspapers, magazines and previously a top rated TV show. His critics accuse him of hastening the demise of the Rover Group with his relentless criticism of their vehicles. Manufacturers have made changes/modifications to their vehicles as a response to Top Gear. He is far from some random asshole writing a blog. The writer of TIME Magazine's 50 Worst Cars of All Time is Dan Neil, one of the most respected automotive journalists out there today. He works for The Wall Street Journal and is a Pulitzer Prize winner. One of the damning reviews is sourced for the Chrysler Sebring was written be Jonny Lieberman when he was contributing to The Truth About Cars. Jonny Lieberman is one of the main writers for Motor Trend magazine. In fact, right now he's receiving a lot of attention because he just nailed the new Corvette Z06 in the latest Motor Trend issue because it failed to even complete basic testing because of a mechanical breakdown. It elected an official PR response from General Motors explaining why the Z06 test vehicle broke down and couldn't complete their tests when every other vehicle (including other GM cars) did. But I am being told that none of these critics can be used as a source because they are just "entertainers" writing "revisionist opinions". In that case, we need to scrub this website of all references to Roger Ebert's famous "I hated hated hated hated hated this movie" slam of North, since he is just a popular entertainer looking for a cheap laugh. This article also references opinions from high ranking automobile industry executives such as Automobile Designer Giorgetto Giugiaro (who was voted the Car Designer of the Century in 1999), former high ranking General Motors executives John DeLorean and Bob Lutz, and former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca. But I guess they were just going for cheap guffaws too and their opinions should be taken with grains of salt.

I will admit that doing this list will be tricker than doing a list of the worst Films or Video Games. This is a personal observation but it seems that a lot of car enthusiasts are rather sensitive to criticism to models they like. I have seen editors above express concern that this article is ripe for edit wars and I agree with those concerns. Car enthusiasts will fight to the death to defend their favorite cars, they can't just accept the idea that someone else may not like their favorite car...you have to agree that it's the greatest car ever made or they have a problem with you. It is a big reason why despite being a big car enthusiast, I do not participate in car forums/blogs or the local car scene. All I observe around those parts are constant flame wars revolving the theme of, "My favorite car is the greatest car ever without fault, all other cars are pieces of shit, if you don't like my favorite car and like a different car instead, you are wrong, your opinion is invalid, and you're a worthless piece of shit of a person." I posted above what one editor changed the heading of the article to read. When it was first posted edits were being made to purposely decrease the quality of this article with "This article needs to be deleted" being the edit summary. Criticism invokes strong reactions in the automotive community. But I don't think that is merit for this article to be deleted purely through WP: CENSOR. Wikipedia is meant to advance human knowledge and thus we do not censor or remove content just because it may hurt someone's feelings. And of course that has caused some strong opinions. Right-wingers have gone on to create their Conservapedia , accusing us of containing the infamous "Liberal bias" because we don't adequately promote their point of view.

But the fact of the matter is that reviews and professional opinions are always going to be controversial because opinions are diverse. Some people may like things that are panned by critics and the public, and others will look at the new big thing and fail to see what all the hype is about. Everyone has an opinion. I personally think that Laura Dern is one of the sexiest women currently walking this earth; an opinion that earns me a lot of sideways glances. Reattacollector (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to recall the governing criteria for WP articles, which is a neutral point of view.

This means all articles have an impartial tone. Briefly quoting from the guidelines: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Unfortunately, the referenced quotes in this "list" do not meet this standard and should be deleted. The selected passages may be entertaining to some readers, but they fail to provide any context or meaningful information. For example, a Famous Critic's opinions could be summarized as "all of the brand X cars that were tested by Famous Critic encountered serious mechanical failures, were not able to accommodate passengers taller than X high, and are priced X percent higher than competing models in most markets." This would help the reader understand the basis of the opinions held by that Famous Critic, rather than echoing juvenile rants that "according to Famous Critic, all brand X cars are "built by someone who was being deliberately stupid or who was four years old" and anyone who buys one is "so window-lickingly insane that you'd be banned from handling anything other than crayons." Such rubbish must not be included in a fact-based encyclopedia article.

Furthermore, whenever there is evidence of bias in the sources (such as been noted in the case of the "famous critics/entertainers/authors" that are quoted in this list), then the neutrality of sources guidelines must apply. This means "it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

Another problem is in describing aesthetic opinions. The designs of automobiles have been undergoing constant change and there have been extreme cases during all eras. For example, the slathered with chrome and sky-high tailfin fads that now bring high collector values. There are different perspectives on the appearance of particular models, and some have a "hate it" or "love it" reactions. In all cases, they are subjective opinions - no matter who, how famous, or widely broadcast was the author, magazine, publisher, etc. These opinions should follow WP style guidelines and excessive expressions of praise (as well as condemnation) are out of place in an encyclopedia article.

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the AFD has concluded, the article isn't going anywhere, so it would behoove us all to see an inclusion criteria settled on. Here is another rough based on some suggestions made so far, implementing the feedback from Reattacollector and the suggestion from TRPoD:

Please provide suggestions for feedback. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

With no further comments after 45 days, I am bolding making this the inclusion criteria. I'll see if I can find some time to review the current entries and make sure they meet it. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good call. There was mostly agreement on this, and no real counter-proposals beyond the rejected "just delete it" approach. People can always propose tweaking it as we go too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Page Move to List of automobiles considered the worst

During the AFD, there was support for the page to move to List of automobiles considered the worst. Is there any opposition to this? -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the AFD, I'm fine with either naming convention. It seems most of the similar list articles have the "considered the worst" naming convention, with the video game version having a deviation in naming for reasons not relevant to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have boldly made the move, as no opposition was voiced for several days nor at AFD. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential candidates

May I suggest a few new candidate for this list, one of those is the REVAi, aka REVA G-Wiz. Source: "G-Wiz was the automotive equivalent of the hair shirt; a penance its owner paid for being selfish enough to drive, just as the planet was drawing its last breath" - Sunday Times, " We're more concerned about the health of anyone unfortunate enough to be involved in a collision while driving one of these." - The Telegraph, "The scourge of all right-thinking TG readers, but beloved of tofu-munching sandalistas, the G-Wiz’s rise to urban proliferation - in London, at least - was surely one of the most depressing trends of the past two decades." - Top Gear, Independent again, Daily Mail. I don't know if I can find any other.

Other considerations...

• Suzuki X-90 - How else do you explain the Suzuki X-90 – an ill-fated model that looked like a pile-up involving a sports car, a hatchback and an SUV? - Sunday Times | "Who wanted a two-seater convertible mini-SUV? Nobody, especially when it had awful handling and zero off-road ability." - The Telegraph | "Evil progenitor of the pre-TOWIE Essexmobile...Suzuki GB whipped it off sale after barely 18 months... at roughly the same time Billie Faiers was being born." - Top Gear
• Rover CityRover "the problem was the sheer cynicism with which it was piloted to market: you needed nine grand for a decently specced one." - Top Gear
• Ssangyong Rodius ""Looks like a melted hearse," is the best description of the visually challenging SsangYong Rodius we've ever heard." - The Telegraph | "the Rodius is a vehicle of such cosmic ineptitude that it must surely have been done via pre-Skype in the days of glitching dial-up modems by a team of visually impaired misanthropes." - Top Gear
• Alfa Romeo Arna - This hatchback was the fruit of a marriage blessed by Satan... The result was a rusting, incontinent disaster. - Sunday Times
• Skoda Estelle - How do you double the value of a Skoda? By filling its tank with petrol. These and other jokes once plagued the Czech car maker. - Sunday Times - anybody at school at the time will tell you these were the source of Skoda jokes at the time. Donnie Park (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Fiat - [Any number of models might be appropriate for inclusion and it should be noted that the 128 was the precursor of the Yugo]

More considerations...

• Lancia Beta - "Pretty styling, good performance and good value. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot, as it happened." - Carbuyer | A car you have to sell back to its maker, which later causes that maker to fall, can be nothing but terrible. - The Telegraph | "Most Lancia Betas came with a very special feature: the ability to turn to rust while you popped into the shops." - The Sunday Times. Donnie Park (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For me, one thing I would like to see is a focus at the main article on this aspect. For example, the first item in the list above is Suzuki X-90. We've got several sources here, but the main article only mentions it being on Top Gear's list. The rest of the sources aren't there and poor reception or other issues receives no attention outside of mentioning the Top Gear list. This list should be a summary of the poor reception, not the primary (or only) place that it is detailed. -- ferret (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Arna has been added to the list. That one is pretty much a ringer. I also would like to add the Ssangyong Rodius and the Suzuki X90 as well, I believe I can find enough reliable sources to warrant their inclusion. Just haven't had enough time to add them yet, I've been too busy filling out the 2000s section. I also have an idea of three candidates to add to a 2010s section, but it remains to be seen if they have enough reliable sources to back up ranking them amongst the worst: the second generation Chrysler 200, as it was withdrawn from the market in just two years after poor customer response and mediocre reviews (though it remains to be seen if any rank it amongst the worst), the Fisker Karma, another one that tanked quickly after it's initial hype period, plus it got bad press for numerous fire issues, and the current generation Mitsubishi Mirage, given how it has gotten completely panned by critics. 64.85.150.114 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of a source

The Eric Peter book, Automotive Atrocities!, is referenced in the descriptions of 17 of the 28 cars in the article. Why is it used so heavily, when other car reviews abound? MgWd (talk)MgWd —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of automobiles considered the worst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609084833/http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q2/the_skeptic_has_a_malibu_moment-column to http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q2/the_skeptic_has_a_malibu_moment-column

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Unprofessional title

I don’t think think the title of this article should be what it is now. It’s extremely unprofessional. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. It doesn't sound at all encyclopaedic - more like something out of a tabloid newspaper on a no-news day. Can't think of a more appropriate one, right now, though! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to move it. If people disagree, they are free to move it back. I'm not looking to start a fight with whoever named the article. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to change it to something like "List of automobiles known for negative reception"? It's not just about reviews by professionals, but rather the general reception and image of the car as one of the worst ever. I tried to change it myself, but didn't succeed, so maybe someone else who knows how to do it can go ahead.Epomis87 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"List of automobiles known for negative reception" is much better than "List of automobiles with negative reviews" most cars have had negative reviews but this page is about those whose reception was very negative. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Top gear rated the Lexus SC 430 as the worst car in the world. Ever.

Why isn't it included in the list? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

They are the only people to call the SC430 that. There aren't any other reviewers who concur with Top Gear's opinion. Reattacollector (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Reattacollector:I understand. Top gear UK is of course FAR from reliable, being the jokers they are. Thnx. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Top Gear can be used as a source as this article is partially about punditry, in fact Top Gear is cited as a source for multiple cars on the list. Just in this case, no other prominent sources cite the Lexus SC430 as being among the worst cars ever made. Even by Top Gear's standard, they only wanted to select a very high end car from a respected manufacturer that they found disappointing thanks to its price and prestige. Reattacollector (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree: One source is not enough. Top Gear may be included here as a reliable source, but in order to justify a car's appearence on this list, you have to have multiple reliable sources that either claim it to be one of the worst cars ever made or show that it had a recognizable and lasting negative reception with critics and customers alike that today make it considered one of the worst ever. I highly doubt that you will find sources like these with the Lexus SC 430 though, as it was mostly well-received by testers and customers and Top Gear probably just selected it as the worst in order to provoke. Epomis87 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Epomis87: Thanx for the elaborate answer. Like I said myself, Top gear is more a comedy show than a reliable source of course. If there are no other sources to support their opinion, don't include it. I get it. Once again, thanx! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Clickbait

This article is neither journalism nor unbiased nor encyclopedic. It is the Pinto-Cimarron-Yugo of Articles. It has the appeal of every top-ten list ever, every product to carry an 'As Seen On TV' label. After reading all the comments here, I too am giving it a Negative Reception, and herewith propose we create an WP Article which is itself a List of WP Articles with a Negative Reception. This article could lead the way.842U (talk)

Agree - This article does not meet the established standards to make it worthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. It is a collection of opinions, bathroom humor, and hearsay. Moreover, the article provides no standard or definition for: "known for negative reception" thus making the entire list questionable. It also does not meet the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requirement. Thank you for proposing the List of WP Articles with a Negative Reception. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

One of the mean issues is the total lack of distance. A large part of the list is just a naive list of "successful foreign cars that went bashed by the US car industry propaganda". The whole article has an amazing American bias, whereas especially in Europe, people laugh the same at American cars (mostly Ford manages to sell some cars in Europe, and not the same as in the US). FredD (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I partly agree. Many of the entries, especially those that show an American POV, should be deleted, although the necessity to delete it may depend on the single case. A few examples:

• The Renault Dauphine was well-received in Europe, but was slammed in the US - unsurprisingly, since it wasn't designed for the US, but as said, it was a success in Europe. Delete
• The Renault Fuego and Subaru 360 - basically the same thing Delete
• The Yugo was a cheap, crappy Eastern European car no one had high expectations with, but being the only Eastern European car be sold in the US and even being somewhat successful at that made it a popcultural phenomenon, and it is often considered one of the worst cars ever Tend to keep
• Other Eastern European cars on the list like the Polonez, Trabant, Lada, etc., were manufactured under difficult economic conditions and were never expected to be as good as western cars, but especially the Trabant and the Lada have earned a strong cult status for their poorness Tend to keep
• Cars that were obviously total failures such as the Edsel, Cimmaron, Delorean, Austin Allegro or Morris Marina, or that got infamous for severe safety issues, such as the Pinto and Corvair, certainly belong on this list. Keep
• Then there are cars that mainly aren't liked for their design, like the Jaguar S- and X-Type, Renault Vel Satis, Suzuki X-90, Ssangyong Rodius, etc. Design is a matter of taste, not an objective criticism, there was nothing wrong with those in terms of construction. Delete
• The Smart is a small two-seater with good driving dynamics that was bashed in the US mainly for being... small? Well, that says it all. A large car also isn't criticized for being too large. Delete
• The Mitsubishi Mirage is a small economy car that is to be cheap and does its job, you can't criticize it for that.Delete

Epomis87 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Some consideration

I offer to nominate these two into the list

• Chrysler PT Cruiser Cabrio (3)
• REVAi (2)

source autoexpress topgear autowise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.227.81 (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In many countries, the REVAi does not meet the criteria to qualify as a highway-capable motor vehicle, and fits into other classes, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) in the United States and heavy quadricycle in Europe. --Love Krittaya (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinese cars are generally known for negative reception, so I think this list should listing some of them too. --Love Krittaya (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding the Cadillac ELR to the page

I've added the Cadillac ELR to this page, knowing that it is a bad car and that many other journalists and publications feel the same, and that it is worse than a few of the cars that are currently on this page, but "Springee" keeps removing my addition, saying that it "does not rise to the level of inclusion here." If he knew anything about bad cars, than he'd know that the ELR meets the criteria to be on this page, and not the Jaguar S-Type, which has its flaws, but is far from being a bad car.

"Springee" wants to be the pretend "sheriff" and not let other people such as myself put a car on the list, only stating that it "does not rise to the level of inclusion here," and nothing more.

I challenge him to a debate on why in his opinion the Cadillac ELR is not a bad car, and why he doesn't remove the article on the Jaguar S-Type, if he's so determined to remove vehicles that "do not rise to the level of inclusion here." 162.238.92.167 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Consider that a minimum. I didn't add the S-Type content so I won't defend it. If you wish to remove it, you can make that edit. If the content isn't restored you can assume others agree with you. Springee (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I feel that my article has met the inclusion criteria. I guess you can't really defend the Cadillac ELR and its problems, and since you are the only person that has removed my addition multiple times and no one else has given their opinion, you appear to be the only person with a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.238.92.167 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It didn't sell well. OK, so what. You had one reference, US News. That's not a very strong source and certainly isn't multiple sources and that review is hardly the sort of damning review or lasting impact that something like the Corvair had or the Pinto got due to the fuel system related fires. Many of the facts you included in your edit are not supported by your source. There is certainly nothing notorious about the car vs something like the Caddy V8-6-4 or Olds diesels. You simply haven't made the case for inclusion. Springee (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So what other professional sources can you recommend? When I say professional, I don't mean Jeremy Clarkson, a rambling YouTuber, or a Reddit thread. This page has the same old crap that any person would expect to see (Yugo, Ford Pinto, etc,) and in my opinion, it's nice to see more recent that cars that were bad, but also forgotten (Fisker Karma, CityRover, Cadillac ELR, etc.)

You mention that the ELR doesn't have "the sort of damning review or lasting impact that something like the Corvair had or the Pinto got due to the fuel system related fires"; People that remember how bad those cars were first-hand are now senior citizens, and I doubt Millennials or anyone younger than them are interested in reading the same old thing that their elders have already told them about. In other words, the "lasting impact" of those cars doesn't mean very much to a person that's a Millennial or anyone younger that visits this page, because they simply weren't alive.

Nowadays, there's more to judging a car as a bad car than just saying it's bad because it blows up; modern cars, good or bad, simply don't do that anymore; you have to look at other details (high price, poor reviews, etc.)

Some parts of my edit came from the ELR's own Wikipedia page; should the Wiki page be cited as well, even though this page and that page are in the same place, and there's a direct link to the ELR Wiki page? The problem is that I've made the case for inclusion, but you haven't made the case for exclusion, and if you think you have, then it's very poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.238.92.167 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

First, all Wikipedia pages need to be stand alone in terms of citations. If you copy content from another page then you need to include the supporting citations and in your edit note state where the text came from (a link to the article is fine). Second, the wp:ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion. It is not on me to make the case to keep it out. Thus far you haven't made the case. Springee (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not incumbent upon other editors to fix an article; they are however free to delete content that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. This entire article fits that category, but in the meantime, there aren't sufficient bonafide sources to warrant inclusion of the XLR here. 842U (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree the whole list is questionable. Springee (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot recall another Wikidia article that strikes me as just wrong. Virtually every car has its detractors... and its proponents. Should there be a List of Really Good Cars to go along with a List of Great Cars, too? The article strikes me as a byproduct of the preponderance of "ten best" lists that masquerade as journalism. Ugh. 842U (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As has been discussed numerous times over the years, this article does not meet the "notability" standard for a fact-based encyclopedia. The automotive and popular press is full of articles that describe problems or issues with specific cars. Another problem is the proliferation of recycled material - particularly with click-bait sources - that masquerade as authoritative citations. These are included as evidence for listing the cars as being "known for negative reception."

Nevertheless. the so-called "criteria" (described at the start of this article) for the inclusion of automobiles is problematic. Simply "referred to in popular publications as the worst of all time or have received negative reviews across multiple publications" has no criteria. Even the word "worst" is simply the superlative form of bad which itself is a subjective term. Furthermore, simply receiving negative reviews across multiple publications is also undefined. Many of the articles that are included in the reference list in this WP listing are direct copy-and-paste blurbs often written by individuals without any first-hand analysis or even experience with the cars they attempt to describe. Even more problematic is the completely subjective standard to determine vehicles that "do not rise to the level of inclusion."

This article should be included in a list of List of worst Wikipedia articles. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I support AfDing this article. Springee (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cylinder Deactivation

in the 1980s section the cadillac V8-6-4 contains the following passage, "Today, cylinder deactivation systems, also known as a fuel management system, are a common feature on large-engined automobiles, including many produced by General Motors." Making it sound as if all the problems have been ironed out of these vehicles and this is now a good thing. The class action lawsuits and warranty extensions on Hondas VCM equipped vehicles are evidence this is not the case. Batvette (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Cyber truck

I reverted an IP editors attempt to include the cyber truck into the article due to failing to meet criteria number three. I believe it is just too soon to put it on this list of all time duds. I would like to hear other editors opinions on inclusion of that vehicle. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this should be included. The vehicle had a delayed production, cost more than advertised, and has had numerous articles written about the negative reception. VinFast has been allowed to stay, I think CyberTruck should be allowed. Cjhawman (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the VinFast VF 8 for failing the five-year criterion for inclusion just before coming across this discussion and reading about the car being allowed to stay. I am not familiar with any discussion or precedent on that, but then I read the same criterion and noticed this part: "Exception may be made for automobiles on the market for less time than this." Although I have restored it, I tend to believe that this car is just one of those lemons du jour that will be forgotten later. Indeed, I believe that the criteria for inclusion need to be better defined in ways that should exclude some entries already on the list (especially newer ones such as the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet). There needs to be a way to separate bad from abysmal, and based on the wording, the VinFast is just bad. FreeMediaKid$ 20:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I do think the CyberTruck is just another lemon du jour. FreeMediaKid$ 21:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Revised inclusion criteria

Time to negotiate revised inclusion criteria, and I am here to help.

We know the back story of the turbulent history of this article's quality, so to get to the point, in an effort to possibly salvage this article from threats of deletion, I propose a sixth criterion numbered 3, between current criteria 2 and 3:

3. These sources must point to issues related to performance or reliability, or to serious flaws such as safety defects, and those issues must be commonly viewed as characteristic of the automobile.

I am open to suggestions, but as the list stands, it can include cars described as worst for any reason, and this criterion would limit eligibility only to cars infamous for poor quality, as opposed to aesthetics, which should be viewed as secondary. I have compiled a brief list of cars that are currently listed, but under the new criteria would be removed. Five examples that strike me are:

• Triumph Mayflower (1949–53) – Critics cite its ugliness as the reason to call it one of the worst. Otherwise, it was below average performance-wise. Can be removed.
• Reliant Robin/Rialto (1973–2002) – Debatable whether it should be listed. If the vehicle were infamous for frequently rolling over, it could stay.
• AMC Pacer (1975–80) – Aside from Time's description, nothing smacks of the car breaking down or anything, just questionable aesthetics. Can be removed.
• General Motors U Platform minivan (1990–96) – Can be removed.
• Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet (2011–2014) – "The most stupid vehicle of 2011", sure, but can be removed.

I am sure there are more examples, but I reckon revising the criteria this way would greatly clean up this site's list. FreeMediaKid$ 23:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that any snarky reviews by Jeremy Clarkson should be disqualified as a reliable source. Clarkson built a career out of snarky reviews, being "politically incorrect", and insults for entertainment value. He was the Morrissey of automotive journalism. :) I would also suggest that being considered "ugly" is not enough by itself for inclusion. This isn't "list of ugliest automobiles". --Vossanova ^o< 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I had this specific edit in mind. --Vossanova ^o< 19:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)