User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

This is the discussion for whether or not to continue improving User:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. So far, years 2005, 2006, and 2007 have been brought up to what I think is a salvageable standard.

The problems raised at the AfD were:

1. "Unsourced". I've properly cited the sources using the appropriate templates, although there's a small problem. The SMMT compile the figures, but to see them you have to read a word document in a zip file which is accessed via a pop-up box. Not exactly {{cite press release}}-friendly. What I've done is create citation templates which don't contain a direct link, and put a link to the SMMT "press release" parent directory section in ==External links==.
2. "[WP] is not the place for long and sprawling lists of statistics". As per the guideline, I've put in a blurb about the marketplace above each table to try and give a little context to the stats. All the info was taken from the SMMT press release as well, so that also hopefully deals with the issue of...
3. "Lots of OR commentary".
4. "Eight of the 33 years are sourced, so where did the stats for the other 25 come from"? A lack of referencing again, per #1. I suspect the original author got the figures from somewhere, but of course that's not nearly enough, so I'd simply purge the years I can't reference.
5. "I don't like the way this is organized anyway". Not a deletion criteria, as the !voter admitted, but hopefully by organizing each year into a tidier table, doing away with the flagicons, and providing figures for each car, I've made it a bit more aesthetically tolerable. I've also flipped the page "upside down" so the latest years are at the bottom of the page; this means the TOC is more intuitive to navigate.
6. "Entries 2, 3 and 6 at WP:LC". That's "2. of interest to a very limited number of people" which I think I might dispute; "3. a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (see #2 above); and "6. unlimited and/or unmaintainable", not true as long its limited to only sourced info as per #1 and #4 above. It'll only need updating annually anyway, wich is better than a lot of pages on WP. I would also rename it, since the stats are for the whole of the UK, and not just Britain (which excludes Northern Ireland). List of the bestselling cars in the United Kingdom by year, perhaps?

The version of the page before I started tidying can be seen here. Thanks in advance for any input. --DeLarge (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per request, I am hereby stating my opinion, and in my usual blunt style - not worth the effort, DeLarge, however nice it looks. The inherent flaw is that this is just some collection of statistics not meaningful or important enough, while also methodologically disputable, to be included in Wikipedia. Let us leave it out to enthusiast sites and primary sources. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks great, keep going! I think this is a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia. Good luck and let me know if you need help garnering support for its inclusion. Beam 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)