Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:ORGIND. The only sources avaialble appear to be promotional or blogs with videos of this car. No real significant coverage, Fails GNG. Also, there is no inherent notability or inherited notability WP:ORGSIG. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two articles in Road and Track, an independent publication: [] and []. Also [] which I am unfamiliar with but appears to be an RS, and [] which seems to be affiliated with the BBC.  A contribution affiliated with Forbes: [], and Car and Driver: [], Motortrend:  [], and Autoweek: [].  I think enough of these are respected enough industry publications to establish notability. MB 02:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and suggest withdrawal per lack of WP:BEFORE. It is sufficient to click the "news" link below the title discussion, and Google News shows 8,100 "recent" news about the car plus several additional hundred news in the archives. Even assuming some of them are trivial, and a few of them non reliable/independent or whatever, with these impressive numbers even 0,1% accurate sources are enough to pass GNG. Cavarrone  06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cavarrone Vehicle is notable and easily passes GNG Nordic   Nightfury  11:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Nightfury  11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I would appreciate not making assumptions about my editing style - WP:BEFORE. What I came up with was a lot of fan sites and/or industry related sources. In other words, these are not independent reliable sources and they lack significant coverage per GNG, and WP:ORGIND and I quote:
 * "A primary test of notability is whether people independent'' of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.


 * Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except'' for the following:
 * ''press releases, press kits, or similar works;
 * ''self-published materials;
 * ''any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;
 * '' Footnote examples:
 * ''The article on "Microsoft Word" satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
 * The article on "Oxford Union" satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it".
 * All of the above sources from User MB are auto industry or auto racing industry related. As such their coverage is fluffy and one sided. And through advertising are supported by these industries. Putting it another way, all of these have vested interests. Also, BBC Topgear appears to be one of these - promoting one car after another - just look at the right hand side bar.
 * For comparison, something like a Consumer Reports assessment would be really good as a source, such as this . And the Forbes link does not go anywhere, except the main page - there is no coverage obtained by clicking that link. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Forbes link works for me. It is a short article about the car being bought by the Saudi Prince.  As far as Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motortrend, they are independent sources that cover the topic (autos) and have large circulations are the publications people read that are very interested in cars.  They have their own editorial staffs and are independent of the manufacturers.  They are not disqualified because they are single topic mags. MB 14:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I see the Forbes article. It is trivial coverage, and also promotional. It consists of a Facebook comment from a Saudi Prince, and then a gallery of photos. This is not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy GNG. Also, the rest are fan sites and/or industry related sources, with vested interests, supported by the industry advertising, producing fluff for industry products, and so on - Because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. I suggest finding sources that are actually independent such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, the aforementioned Consumer Reports, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, maybe Esquire, Time magazine, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, NPR and so on. Hopefully, the difference is apparent. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but anyone who argues that 8000+ news articles are not enough to pass GNG is just wasting his time and the time of the community. If you don't like the Google News results, try to click the "Highbeam" link, as it provides additional articles such as (from Daily Record)  and  (from Arab News). This is not a close call where criticizing this or that specific source could change the direction of a discussion, this seems more an open and shut case with everyone wondering why on earth such article was nominated for deletion. Also, you seems dangerously confused between independence of a source and its main field of interest: well-established, even authorative specialized sources with 50/60 years of history such as Road & Track, Car & Driver, Autoweek or Motor Trend are obviously reliable sources independent from the subject (Bugatti) per your own quote (no press releases, no self-published materials, no material written by the organization). The fact you don't like such articles carries no weight regarding the assessment of notability.  Cavarrone  19:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just after a couple of seconds of searching I found two of the independent and reliable sources MB found. I doubt WP:BEFORE was followed.  WP:GNG makes no discrimination against "one-sided" pieces, as long as they are independent of the subject.  There could be an article entitled "The Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo Sucks!" and that would still be an acceptable source per GNG.   The nom's claims that the sources writers are not writing with their own opinions is 100% original research and the nom is possibly violating WP:BLP by claiming as such. (WP:BLP also applies to non-mainspace content.)--Oakshade (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG for a concept car. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of reliable sources per above. Industry sources like auto publications satisfy WP:RS or at least don't inherently not satisfy it as mentioned above. They're considered independent, or at least these are. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2016 (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.