Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugatti La Voiture Noire


 * 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 No consensus for deletion. Debate has gone on more than long enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Bugatti La Voiture Noire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The information about this car is already included in the Bugatti Chiron page which is enough. It does not need a separate article because it is based on the Chiron and uses the same drivetrain. Further, information about one-offs should be included in the article of the automobile they are based on. Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles. U1 quattro  TALK''  07:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles is the prime example for the keep. What the OP has described is the variations of the said models, the Voiture Noire is a different model of car to the Chiron, it may share its drivetrain and floor pan abut that would probably be it. Think of it as merging Peugeot Partner with Peugeot 308, as an example. Same mechanicals, different body. Two different vehicles, not worth merging at all. Nightfury 08:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, you do realize that what you want to do does not require you to go through the AFD process? You can just redirect the page. I do not support that, but you can do it. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, The 458 MM speciale has a different body than that of the 458 and yet it has a mention in the Ferrari 458 page because writing a whole article on a one off won't be suitable at all. The MM Speciale is not a variation of the 458, it's a one-off with a different body just like the La Voiture Noire. Same goes for the SP38 Deborah whose mention is included in the Ferrari 488 page along with the Pininfarina bodied Jaguar XJ220 which also has a mention in the aforementioned page. There are many more examples on WP about such one-off models which don't need a separate article. We should include quality material here, not stub-class articles about cars whose mention in the page of the automobile on which they are based on is fair enough. Even the information about special Pagani models are included in the main page of Pagani Zonda, such as the Zonda Revolucion. It has a different body than a regular Zonda and is expensive but it does not have a separate article. why should a redirect be created when the article is not even necessary? U1 quattro   TALK''  10:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, you have not explained why you are using AFD to advance this position. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, It is written above. The car doesn't need a separate stub-class article when it's detailed mention in the Bugatti Chiron page is enough. U1 quattro  TALK''  01:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, yes but if you redirect it editors could use Bugatti La Voiture Noire to link to the correct section of the Chiron page, instead of using a piped link. There is no disadvantage to making a redirect. I do not support this, however this should not be an AFD discuson, it should be a merge discussion. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, why should it be a merge discussion when there is no reason for the existence of such a stub-class article? A redirect should be made but it should be done after this page is deleted. U1 quattro  TALK''  09:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, you want an administrator to delete the page so you can recreate it as a redirect? Do you not see how much of a waste of time that is for all involved? Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Creating a redirect was your idea to avoid pipe links, not mine, which is useless considering pipe links don't take much time to create either. I gave my reasons for deleting the page. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Bugatti Chiron. --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bugatti Chiron as not notable enough for a standalone article, also Bugatti Chiron article has enough information on this one-off so no need to "merge" (need to allow for WP:BALANCE ie. an article about a model of 500 cars versus a one-off). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is more than enough information about this car to warrant its own article. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, no it doesn't. Its a poorly executed stub class article which only has information copied from the main article of the Bugatti Chiron. Further, this car is a one-off, not a series production car so it's mention in the Chiron's page is more than enough as it is based on it. Such stub class articles only erode the quality of material available on Wikipedia. U1 quattro   TALK''  02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, @ there are 4004 stub-class articles according to the WP:Automobiles page. Out of these, only 5 are marked as being of high importance. Why is it necessary that this article in particular be deleted? Unlike most stub-class articles, this is highly informative. Syntaxlord (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lots of comments, but actually very few firm !votes...
 * Comment, like I said, these articles ruin the relevance of wikipedia. This is no exception. When the Bugatti Chiron contains what reader needs to know about the one-off which is based on it, why create a separate article on that which contains basically nothing but the same information pasted on from there? This is not being informative. U1 quattro   TALK''  04:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy Keep: There are plenty of information about the car in google and easily satisfy WP:V, WP:RS (link--,, , , , , etc). The article definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES.-- PA TH  SL OP U  16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * KeepI think enough information to warrant an article. WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES.  Lubbad85   (☎) 02:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: you're talking about Google, not Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it is a stub class article. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. U1 quattro   TALK''  11:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment User:U1Quattro I am unsure who you are insulting in the above comment after my vote. I think it is best if you allow the afd voting and discussion to proceed without arguing or insulting the voters. In my opinion you are WP:TENDENTIOUS  Lubbad85   (☎) 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not insulting anyone but if one doesn't have the basic knowledge about the differentiation between information on Google and a Wikipedia article, they shouldn't bother to vote. U1 quattro   TALK''  17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.