Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Martin DB10


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. NorthAmerica1000 23:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Aston Martin DB10

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a prop for a film, this car will not be going into construction, save for ten stunt versions used for the film. Not notable enough for its own page. A PROD was used and subsequently removed, leading to the AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as nom. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get a second !vote - being the nominator is an automatic delete. ansh666 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As of I've already stated on the talk page, the Aston Martin DB10 is more than just a prop, it represents the start of a new design direction for AM. This makes it similar to other concept cars that do not make production such as the Aston Martin CC100 and Aston Martin Bulldog. Also other movie prop cars, such as the Audi RSQ and Lexus 2054 also have pages dedicated to them. Regards, Hennelly14 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stated, but with no evidence. You've added it to the lead, but there are no supporting citations. - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a citation on the article page, it is a link to an article on Autocar concerning the car. I think it's the eighth paragraph; "Celebrating the great British brand’s half century with Bond, which started with the iconic DB5, the DB10 gives a glimpse to the future design direction for the next generation of Aston Martins." - Hennelly14 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except it's not a concept car. As the citation you have provided makes quite clear, it's a new look, nothing more. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it is a concept car it is however similar to one. It will likely influence Aston Martins new range of cars. Like how the Audi RSQ influenced the Audi R8. Hennelly14 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We need a whole article for a changed look? Not good enough. When the new look comes into being in the next car it'll go down well in there, but not on its own. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. Indeed, we have quite a lot already: Category:Concept automobiles
 * ""A concept vehicle, show vehicle and a prototype is a car made to showcase new styling and/or new technology""

- Wikipedia, Concept car


 * Cloverleaf II (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Has to be the lamest set of articles we have. Minor style changes for a prop (where the info already exists) that may or may not be used in a future car (where half the info should go). This is no more than a WP:CONTENTFORK. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Making standalone articles for "concept cars" that merely prefigure production vehicles is content forking. On the other hand stylistic research vehicles are undeniably noteworthy and deserve a Wikipedia article. - Cloverleaf II (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The DB10 is far more than a minor style change. The Aston Martin DB9 to DBS is minor style change, this however is a significant change in Aston's design language. Hennelly14 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, also I've just read an article concerning the car. It appears as if it is based on the V8 Vantage. Perhaps this page should be added to it and the DB10 page should redirect to either Spectre or the V8 Vantage? Hennelly14 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – As per nom. It's nonsensical having an article about something that doesn't, or in this case not likely to, exist.  Fine, if it was something like the Sinclair C5, notable for its flawed design and disastrous sales figures which, in turn, made it very famous, then I could support it on those grounds.  But for something which is little more than a prop?  No, I don't think so.  Cassianto talk 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: most recent concept cars have a page or a section of another page here at WIkipedia. Production numbers are not the only means of determining notability. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't a concept car. It's a new look, not a new concept. "or a section of another page"? Yep: that is where this stub should be, not on its own page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many concepts/smaller production cars have pages that are only stubs such as the pages I have mentioned above. Also in time when more details are released about the car new information will be added to the page. Hennelly14 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is neither a concept car nor a production car. At the moment, it is a prop.  Cassianto talk 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Many concepts": it is not a concept. It's a slight change in design. Most of this goes into the Spectre article, the remainder id background for when they do come up with something, but a design tweak with no spec chages? that's not good enough for a article. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: it's an article about a work of art produced by a main-stream luxury sports car company. That it was made as part of a marketing exercise to be used exclusively in a James Bond film does not detract from that, in fact that enhances its notability. Because it will be used in a Bond film it has received much wider worldwide media coverage than it would have received had it only been another Aston Martin concept car. Do a google search for it and you can read about it for hours. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As you've been an editor here for a total of five days, and limited your activities to a handful of pages, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with a few of the policies and guidelines we have relating to articles. A. It's not a concept car; B. It's not a work of art; C. WP:NOTADVERTISING says we are careful in promotions (we are not Aston Martin's ad agency); D; the limited material on the car is best placed elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why:
 * does it have to be a concept car?
 * do you say it isn't a work of art - a designer and his team has spent months perfecting its form?
 * can't we have an article about this, but we do we have articles about countless other marketing initiatives those in the Category:Television commercials, for example?
 * This car has already received more publicity, and will become more famous, than many of the human actors who appear in the film. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, learn the policies. When you're done with your WP:CRYSTALBALL, can the rest of us borrow it? Until we can, possible future performance isn't any basis for an article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or are you having trouble understanding it? What has possible future performance got to do with its current notability? It is on front of all the UK car mags today and on all the news websites. It is ALREADY notable in its own right. You (no, not even you) can put that genie back in the bottle.


 * See: EVO, Auto Express, Autocar, CAR, Top Gear, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Time, The Guardian], BBC News as just a few of the sources covering this new car.


 * And I didn't find anything in the policies declaring that only concept cars are allowed or that DB10 is not a work of art. So please support your assertions on those, or retract them. One-eyed Jim (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you try and remain WP:CIVIL and not insult others: it's all too easy for me to up the stakes and start insulting you back, which doesn't help anyone. Sources saying something exists doesn't mean it automatically has an article here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is one you should read (and you should probably read the rest of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT while you're there. At present (which is what we base articles on), there is nothing more to say than Aston, slightly different design, Bond film.... that's it. It's not enough for its own article, as iall the info is pretty much in the Spectre article already (making this a content fork, rather than anything useful). Most Bond props don't have their own article, unless they gain some form of notbility, which is missing here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that to suggest that a user is behaving uncivilly, and with no evidence, as an excuse to avoid talking to the pertinent points raised, is extremely uncivil. None of the links you give (even those that work) raise any relevant reason why the article on the DB10 should not be kept. It ticks all the boxes admirably. Read the links I gave and you'll see why. One-eyed Jim (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To say "Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or are you having trouble understanding it?" is uncivil: desist. I have read the links, which repeat the same scant information. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: certainly looks like a concept car to me (sometimes the 'concept' is simply the styling of the body).  Stepho  talk 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge this information into the Goldfinger article, if it is of interest there, and/or into any relevant Aston Martin articles. It should not have its own article; rather, it is information that is relevant to AM design history and possibly to the film production discussion.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: According to Aston Martin, is a bespoke car and 10 units will be made, so it is a real car. http://www.astonmartin.com/en/live/news/2014/12/04/built-for-bond-aston-martin-debuts-unique-car-for-spectre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.13.206 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Aston Martin will not invest millions of pounds into producing just 10 cars.  They will be homologised so they can participate in some kind of motor sport I should think.  The ramifications of using a "DB10" concept car in the new Bond will inevitably be that it will go into production if enough interest is generated.  That is not the case at the moment.  Cassianto talk 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 12.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the stack of significant coverage in reliable sources provided above by One-eyed Jim. These sources mean the subject of the article meets the general notability guideline; all else is gravy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: even a cursory search reveals a plentiful supply of reliable sources discussing this car. So, despite the manufacturer's stated small production numbers, and contrary to the nominator's opinion, I believe this to be an eminently notable car. TwoWayStreet (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge for now into Spectre (2015 film); I don't think that it has any coverage independent of the film itself at the moment, but if it does have substantial standalone coverage in the future it can be spun back out. ansh666 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage in the motoring press majors on the cars styling and technical details, and the likely cues that will be carried into future production models, with only a passing mention of the film itself. TwoWayStreet (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for not reading carefully. I guess keep, then. ansh666 04:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep for the meantime: It seems, as there will be 10 models produced, that it will be a limited production vehicle. To address the claims that we should merge this, which worked for the Lamborghini Veneno, a limited production variant of the Aventador: We could merge, but if the car ends up being a pivotal point in Aston Martin's design, like they say, we should make it a standalone article. However, the car was just revealed not too long ago, so we may want to revisit this when we have more information. Imitch5 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - concepts, limited editions and even one-offs can be notable if they've been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This one has been. Not much else to say about it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As  says, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources makes this notable, even if it turns out to be a pure one-shot design never leads to another production car.  Even if it were ultimately concluded that this was really nothing more than a tricked-up V8 Vantage, that should still result, at minimum, in a merge of the  content here to that page, not a deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like snow but let's make sure. In the first place, this should never have been brought to AFD as the idea that this should be a red link seems absurd - see Aston Martin DB1, Aston Martin DB2, &c.  Secondly, the topic already has great notability, being covered by mainstream media such as the BBC in detail.  Thirdly, the fact that it will have a small production run is irrelevant as this is normal for such exclusive supercars and, in any case, we routinely have articles for one-off designs such as the Jaguar XJR-17. The only problem I'm seeing with the article is that it doesn't yet tell us what we really want to know — will it have an ejector seat?  :) Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of whether it is going to be used a film, this is clearly a concept car, created by the design department of a major automotive company, not a mere prop. AM says "the DB10 gives a glimpse to the future design direction for the next generation of Aston Martins." This is a textbook definition of the function of a concept car. The comparison with the Audi RSQ is very apt, and I don't see any discussion like this on the RSQ's page.El monty (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As it is an upcoming model, it is worth saying that not enough sources / information is available to best describe it - I'd say wait until they come out or wait six months or so and if it doesn't improve re-AFD it.  ayc li ffe talk 14:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.