Deletion of List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

Comment: This is largely identical to the prior list and suffers from the same problem, mainly that it is inherently NOT-NPOV, which means that the list can NEVER be NPOV, and so it must go.  This isn't merely a clean-up issue, it is subjective as to what can be considered a "failure" and thus, will never be neutral.  The article is also nearly entirely unreferenced, and thus fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Qualifies under #G4|CSD G4, as a re-posting of deleted material, albeit under a new title. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures) was deleted as a result. There are also POV problems, and it's ostensibly |original research. If someone has reliable sources for this, then take it to deletion review, but due to lack of references, and the fact it's a re-posting of deleted material, it has to go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:NOR)

Comment: it qualifies under #G4|CSD G4 ("Recreation of deleted material").   Fails to even mention how they were commercial failures (i.e. how much money they lost), never mind provide sources, which would be practically impossible since such info is not made public by manufacturers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY)

Comment: The issue with this sort of article is that it can (and seems to have) turn into a spree of |original research and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|weasel words.  There are articles like it that that have been kept (eg. Films considered the worst ever), but they restrict themselves to only those cases that have |reliable sources.  If reliable sources can be found for a few cases, and if the article is scaled back to only those cases (and entries added only as reliable sources are found), then '''weak keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)