Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502


 * 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. No consensus for deletion - the other matters of merging etc. are editorial and inappropriate to decide at AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While the auto make and model may be notable, an indevidual example doesn't need it's own article. This article should as a minimum be MERGED with Bugatti Type 57, but certainly qualifies for deletion. -- Proxy User (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Full support for merge to main article and delete this --Typ932 T&middot;C 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close Keep and merge  Keep - AfD is not the place for a merge discussion.  Either be WP:BOLD and merge it, or propose and discuss merging with mergeto and mergefrom.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging is an option. I have nominated the article for DELETION. I'm not sure what your real gripe is, but kindly count the nominations presently active that also suggest a merg as an option. Do you plan to tag them as well? Proxy User (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed my recommendation.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep per Andy Dingley.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is an individually notable car, with a notable history even before the barn find & auction. Then when the barn find story broke, there was significant and widespread coverage of it in major news channels - this is a story that newsdesks, and the general public find notable. I fail to understand why a handful of editors are so against other people adding to the encyclopedia. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is no reason to delete good articles on interesting topics. This individual car has generated substantial coverage by multiple WP:RS and thus is notable, even if WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The car has now sold for £2,989,495. (I paid £470 for mine, but it's not a Bugatti...) This doesn't put it in the top 10 http://classiccars.about.com/b/2008/07/23/the-ten-most-expensive-cars.htm missing by about $1 million. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the sale price to the article. It's not a record price for a car at Bonhams, by the way. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is easily established under the general guidelines, and there exist no agreed on guidelines about specific cars, so I am not sure on what basis the nominator is so sure the article qualifies for deletion. A previous merge discussion reached no consensus. On a simple article size basis, mergeing is a pointless outcome, which merely serves to unbalance the main type article. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. It should also be noted that the nominator does indeed seem to have inteneded that merge be the required outcome, and not deletion. See his comment here, where he disagrees with my attempted closure of said old merge discussion a long time ago (on the talk page of the type article), which was re-opened on the basis of ongoing discussion (not a single other comment was made since re-opening, had I not simply forgotten about it I would have closed it again). Apparently his raising the issue to an Afd discussion is some type of retribution for that. I am speculating here as he never bothered to talk to me about my motives for doing anything that has apparently annoyed him, before letting me find out on my watchlist to see the deletion nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Infact he rather poisoned the well of this discussion straight off the bat by selectively posting that message to two users in that merge discussion who wanted the article gone. I would request he now post a neutral notifications of this discussion to the talk pages of all the participants of that discussion, in the interests of consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Oh good grief! KEEP IT CIVIL! Retribution? What are you taking about? Can there be discussion here without DRAMA? Lordy lordy. I posted to two users who had an interest, as there would be a discussion. That's hardly as dark and ominous as you portray. Again, GOOD GRIEF! Kindly control your snit. -- Proxy User (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Snit" ? What do you expect? This whole malarkey is an extremely Bad Faith attempt to either delete an article, or to merge it away, simply because one editor took it on themselves to write it from scratch and they produced a better article than the self-appointed custodians of Bugatti had done with the type 57 article previously. Pleased don't accuse _other_ people of acting inappropriately until you're contributing articles of this quality, rather than attempting to delete them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I posted this to WP:CARS but there seems to be very little intrest to this article, and I think tere is nothing wrong with these post to my user talk page, he is quite right what happened last time... --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: it is fairly notable car. I remember seeing something about it on an Australian website a short time ago. So if it reached here, it must not be too obscure. Also the author(s) have produced a worthy and referenced article (references in abundance generally suggests notability). Imagine if you had gone to all that work to produce a B-Class quality article and then to have it be deleted? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to inform, there is option to merge it to main article, so it doesnt need to go, but this stand alone article is not needed --Typ932 T&middot;C 08:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - It for sure is a rather well-written, very well-referenced article whose existence can be well justified using general notability criteria. I guess the WikiProject needs to establish some rules for whether individual cars should, or should not get their individual articles, but I see no reason for deleting. As concerns merging, this article is of higher quality to me than the Bugatti Type 75s one, and a lot of detail would be lost if the merge was to occur (I can't imagine the main article providing that level of detail). It is more of a question if we consider this kind of article encyclopedic, and not whether it is a good article - because it is. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per above rationales. The car is unique alone because of its lifetime history and well-referenced facts in the article. -Mardus (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as others have noted it is a well written and well referenced article about a unique car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.244.161 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sources present in the article establish this car as individually notable. 76.93.100.51 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Above is me. Poechalkdust (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a well-referenced article about a car which has received substantial media coverage. Rcawsey (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'd usually say merge but this a well referenced, well written article about this individual automobile. My fear would be that if this article was merged, the content [over time] would be whittled down and there by lower the quality of the content.  It is best to leave it by itself to retain its higher quality.  Oilpanhands (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already suggested this during a previous merge discussion at Talk:Bugatti Type 57, but why not move to 2008 Bugatti barn find? That's what the article is really about: two of the three paragraphs in the lead, five of the six dedicated sections in the overall article, every one of the five general references, and 18 of the 24 inline citations are all concerned only with the car's discovery in a garage. We already have a WP:ONEEVENT guideline which says that articles about events should be named after the event itself and not the people involved. I'd say the same logic could be as easily applied to vehicles. --DeLarge (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Then we can speedy delete it as a "barn find" isn't notable. Sorted. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on renaming, it might even be more helpfull, but judging by this AFd, people would find the material notable whether it is at this title or 2008 Bugatti barn find, so I don't think that puts it under any more pressure to be deleted, so I would suggest that a discussion on the name is appropriately held off until this closes. The reason that ONEVENT is only about people is because there is no consensus to extend to to other things. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd like also expand this car's interesting early career (the Earl Howe period)> However I'm unlikely to spend the time and effort to do so when it's so likely to be AfD'ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2009 (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.