Talk:Current Motor Company
Page rationale
[edit]jdh2550: I'm the original author of this page. It's as valid as the Vectrix or Zero-X pages - please let me know what I did wrong? I added it because someone added a link to "Current Motor" on the Vectrix page under the "Competitors" section. On the Vectrix page I changed the formatting of the "Competitors" section and corrected our name to Current Motor Company and then created the Current Motor Company page by using the Vectrix page as a template. Vectrix is considered newsworthy and wikipedia worthy, thus, I consider Current Motor Company newsworthy and wikipedia worth for much the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh2550 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
relevance of this page
[edit]Electric vehicles are much in the news these days. Also this page is referenced from the Vectrix page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectrix and Vectrix is a hot topic right now since they are the highest-profile electric motorcycle company, and are in the process of going bankrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.140.43 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Current Motor Company manufactures electric vehicles and is the only manufacturer that is assembling an electric motor scooter in the United States. These facts provide a sufficient degrees of notability to meed the importance or significance criteria. This article should stay. PJD412 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Current Motor Company is participating in the birth of America's fledgling electric vehicle sector.This chapter is being written after the virtual denuding of the country's small manufacturers. There are few authoritative references and even less recent history. I ask the editors to give owners of Current Motors and other volunteer contributors time, forbearance, and equal space to evolve their listing and corporate bio here on Wikipedia. Omitting Currents Motors or holding them to an editorial standard higher than their competition would not serve the community. 65.96.189.13 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted specs and info on future product
[edit]If any of the information came from an independent reliable source, it might have been worth saving, but unverified claims touting the features of a nonexistent product only on the say-so of the ones taking $100 reservation fees plus deposit from hopeful customers goes a little far.
Other than recent hype and hysteria over electric vehicles, this company also fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and probably should be nominated for deletion, although perhaps some sources will turn up.--Dbratland (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- To Dbartland: If you wish to maintain the standards of future products then please apply those same standards to the other EV motorcycles listed on wikipedia. By so clearly applying these double standards you do the service, and the buying public a disservice. If you say "I don't know which ones don't meet the standards" then why do you feel obliged to treat this page differently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh2550 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that no one person is capable of deleting all the bad information on Wikipedia is not a reason for me to hesitate to delete what I can. See also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
- Rest assured, I and other editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling are tagging and deleting unsourced or biased information every day. If you see other faulty information and you think it is unfair that it hasn't been removed, then remove it yourself. Attempting to argue that misleading or unsourced statements should remain because other stuff exists is probably not going to win any arguments.
- I have, in fact, targeted the section Electric_motorcycles_and_scooters#Comparison_of_select_production_vehicles because it clearly implies that vaporware exists, particularly since it is side by side with a purported "Comparison of select upcoming vehicles." And I'm going to be paying a lot more attention to these electric scooter articles, because I don't like the way Wikipedia is being used to advertise hypothetical future products alongside appeals for deposits and down payments. It goes too far.--Dbratland (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Jdh2550, keep in mind you don't own this page, and also because other pages exist doesn't justify keeping this one. Articles on Wikipedia need to be reliably sourced, and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; if the article isn't notable now, it shouldn't exist until it is. tedder (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, point taken - I don't own any wikipedia page - but then neither do you. That's fine except you seem to want the last word on what's acceptable. Note the other folks above in support of the article. But answer me this: how does a major news media outlet parroting the PR of a company make it a reliable source? Have you verified any of the "facts" on the other products? Also, why go to the trouble of deleting two entries on the motor scooter page as "spam" when the several entries above it list availability dates of 2008? That doesn't scream "well researched". I have no interest in policing other people's work, so I don't delete it. You're applying dubious double standards of "independent verification". But it's everyone's playground. Information is in an independent source - the annarbor.com article - which is a replacement for the Ann Arbor News - today Current Motor Company is on the front page of their hard-copy newspaper. Sure, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - but then you're not in possession of all the facts either and you feel satisfied to act. BTW I'm not arguing that "that misleading or unsourced statements should remain". Nothing in the page deleted was misleading and it is independently sourced. What are the "rules" for putting it back? How many sources? What level of distribution? What represents "independent" review? What is so bad about "future products" anyway? Why do you feel the need to remove this stuff at all? So many questions - so little transparency from a supposedly transparent service. jdh2550. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.83.95 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The basic guidelines are found at WP:RS and WP:IS and WP:CITE. The criteria for notability for company is at WP:COMPANY. If your edits meet those criteria and you give citations for everything, you're set. Wikipedia is not a service. And I wouldn't call it transparent, myself. There is so much information about Wikipedia available that it becomes almost opaque trying to understand it all.
(BTW: it helps if you sign you comments with four tildes ~~~~ or click the signature button above the edit window.) -Dbratland (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Another tip: Look at the archive of some recent debates in the Articles for Deletion log. Perhaps you can see how the thinking runs by looking at a range of examples. The links in red are the ones they decided to delete.--Dbratland (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The basic guidelines are found at WP:RS and WP:IS and WP:CITE. The criteria for notability for company is at WP:COMPANY. If your edits meet those criteria and you give citations for everything, you're set. Wikipedia is not a service. And I wouldn't call it transparent, myself. There is so much information about Wikipedia available that it becomes almost opaque trying to understand it all.
- OK, point taken - I don't own any wikipedia page - but then neither do you. That's fine except you seem to want the last word on what's acceptable. Note the other folks above in support of the article. But answer me this: how does a major news media outlet parroting the PR of a company make it a reliable source? Have you verified any of the "facts" on the other products? Also, why go to the trouble of deleting two entries on the motor scooter page as "spam" when the several entries above it list availability dates of 2008? That doesn't scream "well researched". I have no interest in policing other people's work, so I don't delete it. You're applying dubious double standards of "independent verification". But it's everyone's playground. Information is in an independent source - the annarbor.com article - which is a replacement for the Ann Arbor News - today Current Motor Company is on the front page of their hard-copy newspaper. Sure, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - but then you're not in possession of all the facts either and you feel satisfied to act. BTW I'm not arguing that "that misleading or unsourced statements should remain". Nothing in the page deleted was misleading and it is independently sourced. What are the "rules" for putting it back? How many sources? What level of distribution? What represents "independent" review? What is so bad about "future products" anyway? Why do you feel the need to remove this stuff at all? So many questions - so little transparency from a supposedly transparent service. jdh2550. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.83.95 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of Business
[edit]The author of this article (John Harding) cannot be contacted and Current Motor company is at this point remains purely as a paper company in the portfolio of "Belle Capital" - a group of rich women "angel investors". So for all practical purposes, Current Motor Company is out of business. But yes, they did manufacture some number (probably less than a hundred) of high performance electric motor scooters between 2010 and 2013. I own one of the few still running.