Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandenbrink GTO

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The fact that this car was not made is not a reason for deletion, as per the consensus here. There is sufficient coverage at reliable sources for the consensus to be to keep this article, albeit with cleanup needed PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandenbrink GTO[edit]

Vandenbrink GTO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this as it had been dePRODed previously, my rationale of nominating is that this article is more like an attention grabbing press release of a car that have not existed since it was introduced four years ago, for that its a modified Ferrari intent on imitating a well known past model (an easy press points scorer). No physical photograph of the car exist, meaning that it never went beyond its CGI press image (or beyond its drawing board) and I doubt highly it will ever see notability, not since those years have passed. Press release aside, no other third party media coverage to do with it to establish notability exist either. Donnie Park (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...so this is keep for a project that will only exist in press release form only, just like every other failed projects and keep for ticking wikipedia notability boxes. There are plenty of failed projects but at least some of these have managed to come up with working prototypes if not a physical display model and that retro wannabe GTO is nothing but CGI image and nowhere beyond that. As I pointed out, the link you shown here look as if they are was written from press releases, nothing else and beyond that, no physical example. Are we supposed to give notability to CGI cars which I thought would normally be given for vehicles that appeared on fictitious works. As with Google search, c'mon, its a Ferrari, they will always generate publicity every day of each year, just add the GTO name and ghits will skyrocket overnight, people who know Ferrari will know that. Donnie Park (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google books; that's something entirely different than a plain old WP:GHITS search. And we don't "give notability" to anything; the fact of the matter is that, 'CGI car' or not, this appears to meet the WP:GNG, at which point it is notable and article-worthy. No physical example is required; just because it wasn't built doesn't mean it's automatically non-notable. Given the number of mentioned in published works, and the fact that the design has won significant awards, this is a notable thing that is deserving of an article. (Also, given that the project was still extant as of 2011, it seems that declarations it will never be built might be somewhat crystal-bally.) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google books search results only have a single link to its official website, which again, is that a reliable source. So you comparing this to military aircraft/ships, which is more than likely to be notable, to put it this way, they are likely to appear in books wheras this is likely to be forgotten - anybody with a design degree (or anybody else) can come up with a car which is unlikely for military vehicles. Back to what I said, it still consists of the same press releases along with its usual press musings just as i said, I doubt this project will go beyond its drawing board, why, nothing have been heard of the project since 2008. Donnie Park (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (please see my new position three threads down). There are no sufficient and viable sources to establish notability and the stub's worth of content is clearly promotional in nature, and may have even been contributed by someone who is connected to the subject's designer. Snow (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's promotional in tone, AfD is not for cleanup - also, there are sufficent sources to establish notability. See: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I'd fix the article myself except I don't read Dutch. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well only three of those are really decent sources, but three is enough for verifiability certainly. Not really sure about notability though. The sources reiterate the stats of the car, but they don't really discuss them in evaluative, contextualizing or broader detail. But I will translate some of the better sources and put them on a subpage here (maybe as late as tomorrow though) and people can come to their own conclusions. Thanks for bringing these to attention. Snow (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All evidence I've come across is that this is vapor-coachwork. It made a big blog splash back in 2006/2007 but I have not seen evidence that a physical car was ever made. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vaporware is still notable; the fact that an actual car was not built isn't reason to delete. Also, please see the links above establishing notability, including one from 2011 indicating it's a still-extant project (also WP:NTEMP). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know the project is still in existence, do you know he design team enough to? Providing you fund for a domain name and website for a certain period of time, that website can be kept going until it expires. Donnie Park (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Bushranger's research shows notable coverage in third-party sources. We don't delete things that didn't make it off the drawing board, and we don't delete things that could just be cleaned up. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable only for that short period with a hint of promotional tone to it and copied from press releases, which is typical of all failed projects. I will assure you that in five years time, my rationale to nominate this article will always be the same and we will allow a flood of projects that will never go off the ground, being an expensive car based on a prestigious brand and a well known car, they will have no problem getting media coverage like this one. Donnie Park (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I too am dubious about the notability of this particular subject, what you are saying actually serves more as a justification for keeping the article. The fact that a commerical media blitz can accompany a project like this (whether it comes to fruition or not), only makes it more likely that valid sources will cover it. My only question is whether an unrealized concept for a possibly singular unit for one ultra-wealthy customer that is really only an adaption of an existing subject is really general-use knowledge that benefits Wikipedia users. But I think what you're going to find is that people will make the argument that policy allows for the article (whether it serves any useful purpose or not) in that it has been covered, however briefly, by reputable sources (however small). I would counter that these sources don't seem to do much but list the people who were signed up to assist in the (ultimately unfulfilled) project and some of the car's theoretical performance stats and that this does not itself translate to wider notability or contextual relevance sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but given the community's (intentionally) lax standards on these things, I think you should be prepared for a "keep" determination. Snow (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a note (WP:OTHERSTUFF, yes , but relevant to the above comment), the one-off Ferrari SP12 EC was kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but as you yourself note, we can't really make these determinations based on what was done with previous AfD's, however similar the articles. I'd also note that the SP12 article seems to have superior independent sources, that the project in question was an "in-house" project by Ferrari which was part of an established one-off series, that the model was produced, and that it was made for Eric Clapton no less -- all of which goes a long way to boosting its notability considerably over the present article. And yet, all of that said, I think I would have voted to merge that article too. Snow (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have translated four of the sources provided by Bushranger above to help assess the notability of this subject. Please note that, as the majority of the languages involved and auto engineering in general are out my wheelhouse, some of the technical language may be off. For our purposes here, that should not be a problem, but anyone wishing to add these details as content to the article should fact-check them scrupulously. Also note that the remaining sources were either broken links, invalid sources, or were near-verbatim variations on the four that were translated, so this seems to be the sum total of the info we have available to us at present. Snow (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for fixing that up! I might try, if I get the time, to work some of that into the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • NP, Happy to do it.  :) In fact, anytime you need material translated (whether it be investigating sources or transwiki-ing content), feel free to let me know - I've got a linguistics background and a wide array of tools so I'm ok even with languages I'm not particularly familiar with. Snow (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, as per Bushranger's original position (note that he now endorses a keep). I think given A) this really is an adaption of the Fiorano, B) we're unlikely to ever have more than a stub's worth of viable content to add on this subject, and C) notability is at-best contentious, a subsection on that article seems like the best course of action. Snow (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vandenbrink_GTO&oldid=1138742975"