Talk:Kepler Motion

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

Should I add an image?[edit]

I saw an image of the MOTION on this page:https://www.car-revs-daily.com/2014/08/26/2014-kepler-motion/ and need help in figuring out if this is free use or not. Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arotparaarms as a rule of thumb, images on the Internet are copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that they aren't. The rule does not always apply but it's a good indicator. If you scroll to the very bottom of the page you linked, you will see a copyright notice Copyright © 2013-2024 Car-Revs-Daily.com. You can only publish copyrighted content on Wikipedia once it enters public domain, that is generally 70 years after the death of the author.

If you want to search for free-to-use images, DuckDuckGo has a function in its image search that allows you to select only "Free to Share and Use" images. Otherwise, if you have taken a picture of the car yourself, for instance at a trade show, please upload it! Broc (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already use Duckduckgo so I'll Give it a try!

Thanks a million @Broc!

(You know the drill) Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found One!

https://baluart.net/articulo/en-videos-el-super-deportivo-kepler-motion-sale-a-las-pistas?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaluArt+%28BaluArt.net+-+Tecnolog%C3%ADa%2C+Entretenimiento+y+Cultura%29

Thanks mate! Arotparaarms (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arotparaarms I'm afraid you won't like this comment.

The website you linked is indeed licensed Creative Commons, meaning you could upload it on Wikipedia. But... it seems like the website copied the image from somewhere else, and you can find it here in higher resolution. So I'm afraid to say this image is most likely copyrighted.

Your best bet is probably finding a non-professional image taken by someone at a trade show and posted online with a CC license. Flickr might be a good place to look for one. Broc (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Ill try finding a better one! Arotparaarms (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

@Bastun thanks for checking the page. I will remove the notability tag as in my opinion there is significant coverage in WP:RS:

[1] on New York Times
[2] on New Atlas
More on specialized websites: [3][4][5]

I would suggest using the NYT source in the page, which would also solve the reliable sources issue. What do you think? Broc (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Broc. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The general notability guideline sets out the criteria to meet the notability requirements. Right now, the article doesn't meet them. A single review article in a reliable source or two does not, to my mind, satisfy the requirements, especially when they've not yet been added to the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun I need to disagree here, per WP:ARTN notability is independent of the article content. Broc (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, even one single review in a WP:RS in my opinion meets GNG requirements. Here we are talking of an article on the NYT plus innumerable mentions on smaller websites.

If you still think the subject is not notable, please candidate it for AfD. Otherwise, please remove the tag. Broc (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read some recent AfDs where notability was a concern. "One single review" absolutely does not meet WP:GNG. If the tag remains, then interested editors may demonstrate notability by adding sources that demonstrate that notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun What I don't understand is, if you believe as it seems that this subject is not notable despite the sources linked above, why not suggest it for AfD? Notability does not appear over time or just because other editors expand the article; either this car is notable (then it deserves a page on Wikipedia without a notability tag) or it's not (then it should be deleted). Broc (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, Broc. I had some free time earlier, I did some new page patrolling, I tagged the article as I saw fit, as per our guidelines and policies. I was then busy for the rest of the evening, and where I am, it's now 23:45, and I don't have time to do a proper WP:BEFORE, before AFD'ing an article. So I won't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]