Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porsche Varrera (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Porsche Varrera
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not sure this is a real car (although it doesn't appear to be a blatant hoax). There is a car called the Porsche Carrera, however.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Presuming this is not a hoax (miniVan + cARRERA = VARRERA), this is a description of a non-notable prototype deletable under the principle that the article is an exercise in CRYSTAL BALLing the future. Concept cars in the auto world are akin to demo tapes in the music world or pilots of unmade television shows... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable and CRYSTAL. The trade mark registration is real enough, but that may only mean that it was identified by Porsche as too tempting a name for competitors (I don't know whether a Ford Varrera would have the same cachet as a Porsche Carrera, but it is common for companies to protect names in that way). It is very likely though that there was discussion at Porsche of the production of an MPV under that name, and development work may have been done on it. That is not in itself notable - by all accounts some companies have produced hundreds of concept designs for products and very many companies have produced some. If sufficient sources exist these might be mentioned in an appropriate article about the company or the development of a particular product type, but it seems unlikely that one could be considered notable enough for an article in its own right unless at least a working prototype were demonstrated publicly. Mere mention in independent sources ought not be enough because the idea may only have been floated by PR to test reactions or mislead competitors. AJHingston (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as hoax (or at best completely un-verifiable and non-notable). Zero ghits on News, Books or Scholar.  Trademark was registered in the US in 1997 and lapsed in 2004 per USPTO, which seems inconsistent with a design date of 1988.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS to support an article. Merely existing as a trademark is not notability and does not even indicate existence (in this case, it might logically be for the purposes of protecting against competitor use of the name, as suggested by AJHingston above). -- Kinu t /c  19:42, 4 April 2011 (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.