Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrari Purosangue

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 speedy keep. AfD premise is based on a fundametally flawed notion (as argued by many and also supported by WP:NOTBUILT) and is otherwise so erroneous that it suggests "the nominator has not even read the page in question". There is in any case also a strong consensus to keep under normal procedure too. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Purosangue

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that the article fails WP:DEL-REASON#6 because it cannot be attributed to reliable sources. The reason for this is that the article's subject does not exist (yet). Wikipedia is, per WP:5P1, an encyclopedia which means that it describes what is considered to be known and generally accepted knowledge. Currently, the alleged Purosangue cannot fall into this category. Therefore, everything that is "known" and thus described in the article is nothing more than opinion pieces and WP:RUMOURS that are undesired content per WP:WWIN. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in the middle of a museum right now so I can't say much, but I think it would make sense to keep the article because it's confirmed information. Things that aren't confirmed but still likely to happen are paired with "will likely be xxxx". The topic is notable and the article has reliable sources, so there isn't really an issue here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This afd makes no sense. "Cannot be attributed to reliable sources"? There are nine sources in the article and they all look reliable to me. SSSB (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Johannes, is that how you describe a topic that exists or not? We have a lot of movie and music related articles that are yet to be released(although the release date may have been announced) but those articles are in main space. This article in question exists. And if you say the sources there are not reliable, what are they? This article is 95% ok.(according to me). -Idoghor Melody (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to confirm it. CABF45 (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be enough non-trivial sources here to satisfy GNG JW 1961^Talk 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - This article does appear to pass GNG, and yet, to my reading, appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL point number 5, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors"? A lot of this article does appear to be well referenced speculation about a product. Perhaps the wording at WP:CRYSTAL should change to clarify if it applies to product speculation in reliable sources? A7V2 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article violates #5, since that is targeted at short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors. Although the article is primarily information about an upcoming product, it also covers other aspects of the subject, such as Ferrari's lawsuit to trademark the name and a short history of the car's development. To me, that would appear to satisfy the standard set by WP:CRYSTAL.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, premise of the AfD is fundamentally flawed. Subject unambiguously passes GNG.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is a philosophic problem. Nobody knows for certain whether this actually is an upcoming product. The article describes what people believe an upcoming product could be, but it doesn't describe the actual upcoming product. That is because it cannot do that for obvious reasons (nobody knows anything). Sources that describe the subject don't exist, and they cannot exist – everything that sources cover is either things that could be related to the subject in case the subject will be (the lawsuit about the name for instance), or how certain people believe a possible subject could be. Articles on Wikipedia, by definition, require the possibility to describe their subjects in a realis mood (indicatve), id est "the subject is/was/will be". In this case that is not possible without violating Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. So the subject "cannot be attributed to reliable sources", and "enough reliable sources to confirm it" don't exist. What could possibly satisfy GNG is all the press speculation, but not the vehicle itself. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable (both English and non-English) sources claiming this car will arrive in 2022. Upcoming products covered by reliable sources should have their own articles on Wikipedia. Any claim about the new car is legit as long as it's properly referenced (which is the case here). CABF45 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophic problem? No it's not. No source descirbes the object no, but several sources discuss it - which is good enough for WP:GNG.
I'm not really sure how WP:NOR is violated by this article's existance. The article is about an SUV made by Ferrari. The first source says "Ferrari announced in 2018 that its first SUV would be called the Purosangue [the article title]". So no original research there. SSSB (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by this argument. The product certainly exists and has been confirmed by Ferrari (sourced and discussed in article). Information may be scarce but certainly does exist (e.g. will use the Roma platform, powertrain options and development schedule). Some of the coverage is speculation, a lot of it isn't, but the coverage is nevertheless of the subject and I fail to see how that doesn't pass inclusion guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The product certainly exists and has "been confirmed by Ferrari" → The point is that they have NOT done this in the way the article makes the reader believe, and that the product does NOT exist. Everything that Ferrari has released to the public as of May 2021 is the following: "We will encounter this risk, for example, as we introduce the Purosangue, a luxury high performance vehicle within the GT range that we are developing and is expected to launch in 2022." [1] They have not said that it's going to be an SUV, they have not said anything about powertrain options, and most importantly, they have not announced the vehicle yet. They can still decide to cancel the development. There have been so many cars that were never made as intended, and we just cannot know whether or not the Pursosangue is going to be one of them. Just remember the BMW 523g, LPG E28, NSU K70, etc. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian: If the Purosangue ends up not being an SUV, the article can be converted to being about its correct body style, even though the chances are high that this is an SUV, as sources confirm. A similar situation was with the Tesla Cybertruck article. Just look at the history—the article initially was called "Tesla Truck" and it was unknown whether it was to be a van or pickup. The Ferrari Purosangue has far more confirmed information as of now than at that instance. If for some reason it's cancelled, this will just become an article for the topic since it's notable and there's clear significant coverage. I nor do anyone else see the issue here, there's enough significant coverage to the point it passes GNG and that people are going to be looking for encyclopedic information on the car. I don't see the point of deleting an article then having to re-create it months later re-adding nearly the same exact content and references again, this car is confirmed and the vast majority of sources and Ferrari say it is what it is. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not follow your reasoning at all. If what you've said is true, Wikipedia could never cover anything that has not yet occurred, since any future event (even one held tomorrow) could conceivably change from its original intentions. This is an online encyclopaedia. We can cope with change. There is clear significant coverage that demonstrates the notability of this car even if it is never released or finishes development in a radically different state to what the industry currently expects. In the end I have to agree with WaddlesJP13. Even if the Purosangue was cancelled, it would still probably pass GNG as a product that never made it to market. Not making it to market does not preclude a product being included if it meets inclusion guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passed GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2021 (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.