Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vauxhall Vectra

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 redirect‎ to Opel Vectra. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall Vectra

[edit]

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

Vauxhall Vectra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was a redirect and has now been turned into an opinion piece with no references. The current revision is a violation of WP:NOTOPINION, especially Vauxhall Vectra#Jeremy Clarkson's opinion. This article is also completely unsourced. This model could be notable enough for an article, but at the moment this one does not serve that purpose. 11WB (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Vauxhall Victor get its own article then? I'm sure more people know of the Vauxhall Vectra than the Vauxhall Victor. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this article, I am requesting that Vauxhall has all its models' articles deleted and added as paragraphs on its own article, if you want my article deleted. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally a redirect created in 2003 (see this revision) by inactive editor @Boffin. I can see that you have decided to edit the redirect into an article, which is perfectly fine, so long as it is written and sourced appropriately. 11WB (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to Wikipedia, so if you could edit my article so it follows Wikipedia's etiquette, I would be thankful. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reply is just WP:OTHERSTUFF (i.e. claiming that an article should exist because similar articles exist). Please avoid these types of arguments. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 01:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my life, the Vauxhall Vectra is significant, so I made this article not to argue that other models get an article, but for others to get to know about the Vectra. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:3147:77F:C912:38C3 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In my life, the Vauxhall Vectra is significant" That has nothing to do with this discussion nor notability. "so I made this article not to argue that other models get an article" I didn't say that you made an article for that purpose. I'll stop replying in case you keep trying to nag like this. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 12:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying not to nag, even if it doesn't seem like it. 146.90.97.241 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably some necessary context: Jeremy Clarkson's opinion was mentioned because Jeremy Clarkson is the host of Top Gear, a major car-related BBC programme. He reviewed the car in a 1995 broadcast. This is also somewhat positive evidence that the article satisfies WP:NOTE. I added the relevant citation to the article. Lankyliver🧠 (talk / contribs) 09:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Whilst Jeremy Clarkson is prolific in the world of cars, a section named 'Jeremy Clarkson's opinion' is not appropriate on Wikipedia. It could however be written in a 'Reception' section, so long as the quote is attributed correctly. 11WB (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the tip. This is my first time making a Wikipedia article as well. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A6D7:627:59DA:4ADC (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the article has been written Backwards. Rather than search for sources to verify what is already written, it might be better to start afresh, compile sources first, and then construct the article from summaries of their content, as is usual. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing can be acceptable, but the WP:GNG sources have to be there. Clarkson is one, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither does the Cavalier, then. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:A319:317C:AD46:48A5 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making WP:OTHERCRAP arguments. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Vauxhall Cavalier name was used on the Manta, Ascona, and the Vectra A, so it is not analogous in any case. The original Cavalier also received different sheetmetal and various other distinctions, whereas the later Vectra was a straight-forward rebadge with no significant differences that would merit a standalone. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vauxhall Victor. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:3147:77F:C912:38C3 (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. But in any case, the Vauxhall Victor is its own design, with its own sheetmetal and its own drivetrains - it has no direct Opel sister vehicle.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Astra. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:DBED:21A0:73D2:1BFA (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do agree that Vauxhall Astra should be merged to Opel Kadett and Opel Astra, with a DAB page remaining.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my alt. Can you tell me the differnce between the Rover 216 and the Rover 214? 146.90.97.241 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SD3, R8, or R3? Doesn't have any impact on this discussion.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there around 20 to 30 articles on British counties? If all of them are okay, why isn't Vauxhall Vectra allowed to split from Opel Vectra? 146.90.97.241 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPONY. Please click on at least one of the WP:OTHERSTUFF links and read. The whatabouts aren't helping. --Vossanova o< 00:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect - as the article itself says "The Vauxhall Vectra was the British edition of the Opel Vectra". The article adds practically nothing beyond saying it was the Opel Vectra sold in Britain under the Vauxhall Vectra name. That could easily be added in the Opel Vectra article similar to how Brazil is mentioned. As for Clarkson, his "opinion" is any controversy that increases ratings. Top Gear under Clarkson's tenure was never a serious car show with facts, it was a clown show that just happened to use cars as a backdrop. He labelled the car as boring. It could just as easily be labelled as practical, affordable, reliable transport for the typical family. It's not an exotic sports car. Clarkson is known for blasting anything that is not a sports car.  Stepho  talk  19:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand when most of the references on Opel Vectra refer to a 'Vauxhall Vectra' why the Opel page is the target for English Wikipedia. Unless the wikiproject convention overrules the article naming policies than it should probably be the other way round. Possibly moving the Opel page to Vauxhall page is the easiest way of improving the page rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rally Wonk (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:CARNAMES we use the home market name unless all English speaking markets use one and the same name:
  • it was designed and developed by Opel in Germany, not in Luton.
  • The first gen Opel Vectra was sold as a Vauxhall Cavalier in the UK.
  • It was sold as the Holden Vectra in NZ and Australia.
  • It was sold as the Opel Vectra in Ireland.
There is no reason to give UK precedence over NZ/AUS/IRE, and the Vectra wasn't even sold under the Vauxhall Vectra nameplate until the second generation in the UK.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you, I had spotted that policy, but I'm not sure it helps the average unfamiliar reader understand if they're in the best place for the Vauxhall Vectra topic (as wp:commonname).
From the outside it seems many automobiles wikiproject conventions and policies serve the contributors more in maintaining a vehicle database than for curating an encyclopaedia for the unfamiliar. WP:Carnames was built off WP:OTHERNAMES but whereas Gdansk and Danzig are the same tangible thing, as would be any items with spelling variations, I question if a car with a Vauxhall badge subject to a marketing campaign in one culture should be treated the same as an Opel or Holden Vectra in the same regard. I'm not sure it is.
This is not a great example for me to push, I'm not saying Vauxhall and Opel Vectras should necessarily need two articles (but the current Opel lede does a baffling job to explain the redirect for anybody unfamiliar with badge engineering), however I'm not sure why policies preventing that should exist. Jeremy Clarkson's opinion of the Vectra and the Vauxhall Vectra Challenge do not apply to the Opel or Holden Vectras, nor does the appearance of the Opel in DTM mean much to the Vauxhall, so it could be split articles. Here you might say the logic for them being together is "but they're from the same production line", I'm questioning if that logic is right for the readers.
Similarly, I recall discussing the Kia K4 recently and I was told the Chinese Kia K4 was a 'very different car' therefore it 'necessitated a different article', despite the ROW K4 having had multiple names and chassis designs. Kia K4 is Kia K4 to the average reader = 1 article should suffice for the reader, 2 articles serves the contributors with a database mentality. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not the common name, though - UK is not the world. You are advocating for the creation of two largely identical articles (omitting the Vectra A in the case of the Vauxhall entry), as they exhibit no differences beyond the occasional badge or special edition. No more different than a UK-sold Volvo 940 would have been from one sold in Sweden. Not familiar with the K4 discussion, I don't think it has any bearing on this, but on the face of it it sounds as if I would agree with you no, the K4 in China is an entirely different car and definitely merits a standalone - no overlap in content.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the Vauxhall Cavalier lede is good. It translates the local model into the base vehicle right up front then leaves room for the local version to go it's own way. What is the problem with an extra article as long as it doesn't distract from or contradict the main one? Electrons are cheap around here. Sammy D III (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a redundant content fork, a duplicate of the same content - see WP:REDUNDANTFORK.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the References section of the Opel Vectra article on English language Wikipedia; Vauxhall Vectra appears more prevalent than Opel Vectra. 'UK is not the world' has no point behind it. The sources used prefer "Vauxhall Vectra", no? Using the sources is root Wikipedia policy.
"the K4 in China is an entirely different car and definitely merits a standalone - no overlap in content." As you didn't address it, I don't think you understood my point at all. Rally Wonk (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, but as it is off topic, please explain on my talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment on WP:CARNAMES: We are not discussing multiple model names, we are discussing multiple makes/marques/brands with the same model name. titles of automobile articles should be the model name used in the country where the vehicle's manufacturer is headquartered...Note that "manufacturer" refers to the brand under which the vehicle is designed and/or produced, not necessarily the uppermost corporate parent. The home market of the Vauxhall Vectra and the home of the manufacturer, Vauxhall Motors Ltd, and the production lines on which they were built, are all in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps room for discussion there, I don't see this can be applied here. Rally Wonk (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. BY that definition, any country that assembles a vehicle locally and slaps their own company name on it but changes absolutely nothing else will count as a home market.
The vehicle was designed by Opel and then merely rebadged as a Vauxhall. So Opel defines the home market. A section within each generation of the Opel Vectra article labelled something like "Vauxhall Vectra A" (with B and C later on) can cover the tiny differences (mostly the badge). Vauxhall Vectra is left as a redirect so that people searching for it will automatically be sent to the correct article. This is the only way that we efficiently handle cars sold across multiple markets. After all, what can be said about the Vauxhall Vectra that is unique compared to the Opel Vectra apart from the badge and the country. Otherwise we will be reproducing the same information in multiple articles, multiply the maintenance effort of this information and making life so much harder for almost everybody.  Stepho  talk  11:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. BY that definition, any country that assembles a vehicle locally and slaps their own company name on it but changes absolutely nothing else will count as a home market. Yes that's right! Why should that be a major concern? Because when the article title consists of brand names, why can't we expect the article to be written around branding? There's a reason it's a Vauxhall in the UK, Chevrolet in the Americas, Opel in Europe, Holden in Aus; and it's how the average reader looking for each of those sees those. If the article title were model/project codes, which is how they are currently treated, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But those are not common names (nor even mentioned in the articles) which are fundamental to everything we do here for the reader.
After all, what can be said about the Vauxhall Vectra that is unique compared to the Opel Vectra apart from the badge and the country.
The entire branding becomes different and so people's perceptions are different. I'm struggling to explain this concisely and may only repeat myself, but Sammy D eludes to it too below - but there could be in depth sections on brand reach and reception, the marketing strategy and sales, how motorsport was used as part of that, how successful were sales into privateer motorsport or company fleets. What local cultural elements were used in the advertising campaigns. Just because, perhaps, you don't find this interesting, doesn't mean it doesn't belong. But it's very hard to contribute to that when these articles are the wrong brand, and are structured around tech specs and production timelines of a product code and the informal convention that 'one model = one article for ease of maintenance by the wikiproject'; where the only important things are how long it is, whether it's hatchback or sedan, which engines went in etc. It's excluding editors, me being one, and serves members of the project that subscribe to that way of thinking, not the reader. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The automobile articles are not mainly written around branding, they are about the cars, their design, their development. We don't have separate articles for Simca 1307, Chrysler 150, Chrysler Alpine, Dodge Alpine, Talbot 1510, Talbot Alpine, Talbot Solara, or Talbot SX either - because they are just badges applied by local importers and assemblers. Tech specs and production timelines and development are identical for all Vectras (typically with a two-three month delay to filter through to right-hand drive markets), because there is no difference. There is as much difference between the Ryton-built, UK-market Peugeot 309 and the continental European ones.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are studies on the advertising campaigns by Vauxhall that could make a substantial chunk of an article. I could write it, but I'm not adding it to bury in a baffling Opel Vectra article where it doesn't belong and likely won't be read by those it is written for.
The automobile articles are not mainly written around branding Agreed. Not so long as members of the project gang are regulating the content through WP:GATEKEEP. There's no other rational argument for separate Vauxhall Vectra and Opel Vectra articles other than WP:WEDONTLIKEIT.
BTW, there must be some mental gymnastics to explain why separate Vauxhall Astra and Opel Astra articles are tolerated. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Opel Vectra; as per other members. The Vauxhall name was used in a singular area, the Opel brand was used worldwide, and thus more appropriate title for the article. Nightfury 20:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Opel is only based in Europe. If you want a more worldwide approach, make it Chevrolet. 146.90.97.241 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (except for Jeremy Clarkson, of course). I think "redundant" is subjective. I think that Vauxhall Cavalier looks good and this is the same idea. By a strict "redundant" Cav would need to be AfDed too. The average reader may care more about a local option package than the corporate structure of the manufacturer. There are a lot of great auto articles but some of these articles can be geekish and hard to read. Why does it matter where the information is read other than for page views?
You will also be stepping hard on a possibly future star editor (who needs to make an account). They will probably punch this up more, and leave room for other junior editors, too. How does a rookie break into an article that has already been polished by old-timers? You don't make articles just so people can edit them, of course, but you don't need to actively stop them if they aren't doing any harm, either.
I think there is both room and use for this article. Give it some room. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not analogous. The Cavalier had its own sheetmetal for the first generation, which also included the Manta (which was sold as a Cavalier). There was also a RHD-specific station wagon of the second generation Cavalier. The Cavalier name was also applied to the Opel Vectra A, so that belongs on that page. Vauxhall still had a modicum of independence in the 1980s. The Vauxhall Vectra is literally just different badge and grille, and British assembly ended after the second generation. Vauxhall Vectra has been a redirect since 2003 because there is no need to duplicate the content.
As for having new articles made to pull in new editors, I don't think that makes sense. That's like letting someone add a separate article called State of Kansas just to entice new editors. There are still plenty of articles needed, from Talbot-Lago T150 to the Bedford K series (and new cars keep arriving).  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be sort of niche. Why should a Brit care about any Opel? They don't have to be auto people, maybe they are just interested in the neighbor's car? You are forcing them away from their home market and into world platforms because repeating facts is a bad thing? Sammy D III (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Vauxhall Vectra is an Opel - whether they care for Germans or not. It's a standard redirect, and "Vauxhall Vectra" is mentioned prominently in dozens of locations at the article. No one is going to be lost. It's the same when a Briton searches for Bedford KB - they are taken to Isuzu Faster, because Bedford KB was simply one of hundreds of badges used on this Isuzu-developed vehicle. If anything, I think it's good that someone finds out what the actual background of a car is, much like how Americans are so often surprised to find out that Lexuses are made by Toyota. At project automobiles, we decided decades ago that each car gets one article, no matter the badges used, to avoid duplicating content. With the convolutions of the international car markets, there are sometimes gray areas, but this is not one of them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'd have been a GME decision to use common designs between the Opel and Vauxhall makes, so the Vauxhall Vectra is an Opel is another way of saying the Opel Vectra is a Vauxhall. What does it matter to article titling that R&D was consolidated to Germany and not the UK, when any design was always going to be used by both brands, as with every other GME/PSA car since. It's nonsense logic.
No, the "Opel Vectra is not a Vauxhall". It was developed in Rüsselsheim, Germany, as Vauxhall had long since seized to have much autonomy outside of applying Griffin badging. The Luton Design & Engineering facility was shut down in 1988, as no more car design took place in the UK. Since the mid-80s or so, all Opel/Vauxhalls also carry German chassis numbers, starting with W0 (whereas British chassis numbers start with SA-SM).  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd have said 'the Vauxhall Vectra was designed by Opel' or 'the Vauxhall Vectra was made by Opel' then there's a clearer understanding between Opel the manufacturer and Opel the marque/make/brand. These article titles are Brand Brand, and that ties the Vectra A to Vectra D within the same article. It should be the same for every other car article out there currently titled under its branding, including the Kia K4. If you tell me the Chinese and ROW Kia K4s are different cars, I can tell you that under your own argument, new models of any car need to be split into 'different car' articles, no? Rally Wonk (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, different generations under the same nameplate go together, since it helps readers. When there is so much content that the page gets uncomfortably large, we often split out separate articles for each generation, like at Toyota Corolla. The Vauxhall Vectra was designed by Opel and manufactured by Opel (as per the VIN number), all under the aegis of GM Europe. The Chinese K4 and the global K4 are unrelated cars that happen to share a badge; since any article on either one would have no common content at all it makes perfect sense to separate them.
Think of it this way: two identical looking boxes, one contains grapes and the other contains apples (K4s). Versus two identical boxes with identical content, but one has a blue ribbon on it and the other one has a purple ribbon (Vectras).  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, different generations under the same nameplate go together, since it helps readers.
But I bet you would agree there are different models of Opel Vectra having different shapes, suddenly the nameplate is important to your POV. I agree with you by the way FWIW, it's just I extend it to the make as well.
You're still explaining the same model/different model points like I didn't understand it from the beginning. The VIN point really is a none for article titling and structure. A Vauxhall make in the UK is legally a Vauxhall make and the registration papers show it under the heading of make to its owner, there's no indication of the Opel make to the average Vauxhall driver. If the manufacturer is pertinent in article titles, then there's Mercedes-Benz articles that could move to Daimler or even the contractors that make them; Subaru to Fuji Heavy Industries, Lexus to Toyota etc; but these aren't common names for those topics.
I'm not surprised you used purely physical properties in your analogies. Let me try one for my POV of your POV; redirect Mary-Kate Olsen to Ashley Olsen rationalised by them being 99% physically identical, a policy of the eldest twin's name takes precedent and it would prevent an awful lot of duplication and anything unique about Mary-Kate can be a small section of text on Ashley's article. Best I can do!
Also consider that neither Vauxhall and Opel Vectra articles are perfect or complete. All I ask is for the opportunity to remain to improve either, but tbh the main reason I bang this drum on this page is because I've seen it across wp:automobiles. So much content that could be added that is not allowed to be added by gatekeeping, or it's encouraged to be added where it doesn't belong to prove itself first. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for we decided decades ago... there's something wrong. Nobody can express a concern or opinion on this page without being told how to behave and conform to past irrational decisions, and it's why I don't contribute much and maybe the IP who spent a lot of effort on this article will probably leave disheartened. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Choppers: So "we decided decades ago" means that Project Auto has set the only standard anybody can use and anybody who operates outside of it should be repressed? Auto has complete control of any auto-related article? Our way or the highway?
Many platform articles are sort of auto-geekish and can be difficult to read. Why should an average reader need to care about, or be distracted by, shared platform engineering? If they do there should be a link to Opel in the lede, they can follow that.
I have more but I think we are at a stalemate. You can answer, but it's probably for the audience. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One article for one car makes a lot of sense, it has worked very well for decades - duplicating content is not beneficial. This is not a case of shared platform engineering, it is the same car, built in the same plants, just given a different badge for one single market. Vectras all have identical VIN numbers no matter the badge, for instance, all starting with W0L which indicates Germany. It does not make sense to give UK readers more importance than readers from Ireland, Australia, or New Zealand, which is why the home market name is the one we use. Same reason that both Opel Campo and Vauxhall Brava are also redirects.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about importance, it's about service to all readers from none to high understanding. I think you overestimate how much would be duplicated and why it's a problem.
On 'home market', the policy only applies to the model - both Vectra. It might be worthwhile to get the policy updated under consensus to have something to refer to about rebadging marques/makes. Sometimes it's done under license... I digress. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in my car. 146.90.97.241 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview I think this discussion needs a broader look on various models that were marketed by Opel, Vauxhall and Holden, and then I focus on those of the transition period between really unique Vauxhall models and completely identical models with only a different badge.
Opel, Vauxhall and Holden models with shared and non-shared Wikipedia articles
Model name Opel Vauxhall Holden Remarks
Agila Exists RDTO 1st gen: derived from Suzuki Wagon R+
2nd gen: derived from Suzuki Splash
Adam Exists RDTO
Karl Exists
Viva RDTO (standalone entry for 1963-1979 Vivas)
Nova RDTO rebadged Corsa first gen
Barina Exists first two gens from Suzuki
third and later similar to Corsa from second gen
Corsa Exists RDTO
Kadett Exists
Chevette Exists related to Kadett C
Astra Exists Exists Exists first two Holden gens from Nissan production
Cavalier Exists derived from Ascona B, Manta B, Ascona C, and Vectra A
Ascona Exists
Vectra Exists Exists RDTO
Signum Exists RDTO
Insignia Exists RDTO RDTO
Carlton Exists similar to Rekord E
Rekord Exists
Commodore Exists Exists first gens similar to Opel Commodore, Senator (with detail articles)
middle gens similar to Lumina
last gens similar to Omega, Insignia
Viceroy RDTO similar to Commodore
Omega Exists RDTO
Statesman Exists based on but not similar to Opel models
Royale RDTO rebadged Senator
Senator Exists RDTO rebadged Senator
Manta Exists also sold as Cavalier Coupe
Calibra Exists RDTO rebadged Calibra
Zafira Exists RDTO RDTO
Meriva Exists RDTO
Tigra Exists RDTO RDTO
Exists = WP article exists; RDTO = Redirects to Opel article
I may have left some errors in here (feel free to correct), the idea is just to find common ground between all models; why would Vauxhall Vectra be treated differently than Vauxhall Astra, why would Holden be treated differently than Vauxhall, etc. etc. And then without having to use other brands as examples than the ones formerly known as GM Europe/Australia. Maybe this helps to see the solution of this discussion.
Erremm (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be helpful if all the models were the same name across makes. But it's too complicated to explain in a table that there is a reason the name Viva was given to the Vauxhall equivalent of Opel Karl but there is (apparently) a reason not to have content about it at Vauxhall Viva. Meanwhile Chevrolet Viva redirects to Opel Astra.
The Vauxhall Agila, which was replaced by the revived Vauxhall Viva, should (as proposed) redirect to either Suzuki Wagon R+ or Suzuki Solio under the policy of one car=one article, not to an Opel article. If all Holden cars are rebadged, all Holden articles should need redirects too. Holden Astra for example, could redirect to Nissan Pulsar, Toyota Corolla or Opel Astra. And so on... messy.
The first gen Agila started out as a rebadged Wagon R+ but was then given Opel engines instead, gradually crossing the threshold into becoming its own car. The second gen Agila is a version of the Suzuki Splash, so Agila cannot be a redirect in any case. Vauxhall's version is a rebadge of the Opel and only sold in a single market.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easier to let people write about cars who want to write about cars. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the Viva because I assumed it was named Karl (and had wondered in the past how that would have worked in the UK market), so I now added it, as well as the Agila.
You write And so on... messy - and that is exactly what we're trying to clean up and avoid for the future!
One of the reasons to have one English article per model, is that there is less chance that those people that just want to "write about cars" do not contradict each other (e.g. in the Vauxhall article the rear legroom is called big and in the Opel article it's considered small). And e.g. it's also easier to spot the differences when comparing engine choices in case they use different engines in some cases. I can think of many more reasons. Erremm (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If sources say the Vauxhall has big legroom and the Opel has small, so be it. This is Wikipedia, not perfection. I've had to add a lot of things I think is absolute rubbish because it's verifiable, we shouldn't control the content and you'd still have the same contradiction on a 'one-model' article unless your point is you'd control the content to suit your view. Whichever sources used probably do not apply to the other make; and the perception of large and small legroom may just belong within the context of the branding and market for that brand. Your example makes a good case for separate articles.
You're attempting to arrange things under a blanket rule that in all likelihood cannot be applied universally. Once you begin to break down the Vectra A hatchback model to one line, Vectra C estate model to another and so on (which your table could call for - and also more columns for other makes)) you might begin to see it get very messy and won't reach a point where even 'one model' people will all be happy, IMO. The best way to avoid any mess is to judge any article on its own merit: Is 'Vauxhall Vectra' a common and notable topic? Yes. Does it share all content with another topic (ie. is it an alternative name and warrant a redirect)? No. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge Presumably there is some level of Vauxhall specific content and that shouldn't be lost as "a rebadged Opel" just as the Cadillac Catera should be discussed as more than just a rebadged Opel. However, it's not clear why this would be treated as a unique article rather than expanded content in the Opel article. Treat both as distinct variants of the same platform. To be fair, it does seem that the Opel Vectra article already does this. Springee (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. All else aside, there isn't even remotely enough content for a worthwhile standalone article. While I believe there are instances in which having separate articles is better for readers even if there's some content overlap, there is clearly no compelling case for that here. --Sable232 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As it currently stands this article could probably do with some WP:TNT at minimum and the restoration of the redirect, with some material potentially merged into the Opel Vectra article, however I think Rally Wonk's arguments are compelling regarding the fact that there is potentially a significant amount to specifically discuss regarding the marketing etc. of Vauxhall variants of GM Europe's models, and if a suitable draft of such an article could be created (not necessarily about this model, but about any given badge-engineered Vauxuall) I could see there potentially being a strong case for keeping such an article. These articles shouldn't just be databases of car models, they're encyclopaedic overviews of an entire subject, including things like media and cultural reception, which may differ significantly from region to region. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vauxhall Cavalier Sammy D III (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained several times on this page why the Cavalier case is verrrrrry different:
  • The first-gen Cavalier also includes the Manta. It also had unique sheetmetal and a completely different lineup; it was different enough that it was exported as a Vauxhall and sold in parallel with the Opel Ascona B in many markets.
  • The second-gen Cavalier included a station wagon, unique to the UK.
  • The third-gen Cavalier was a rebadged Opel Vectra, which also means a redirect to Opel Ascona would be inappropriate.
In the 1980s, Vauxhall still had some engineering independence, but this ended after they shut down their engineering/design center in 1988. I am begging you to read this and stop bringing up the Cavalier.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to give HumanBodyPiloter5 an example, not get back in.
You simply will not take a step back. Wider POV. You are geeks and are writing geek articles. They are outstanding, accurate, sourced, but they aren't always easy to read.
Not everybody cares or even knows about platforms. Pat, who owned a big-motor Mustang in the day, didn't know that her "American" Buick was a Korean-built Opel. She didn't get how world-car the industry is. We haven't mentioned it since, she doesn't care. It just drank all it's coolant so she's out for another, interested in heated steering wheels and how long the interior lights stay on, not where it was designed.
I'm not surprised that you want me to stop bringing up the Vauxhall Cavalier, it's a perfect example how it can work both ways. Who cares where the fender was stamped? A geek. Who cares what the trim looks like? A customer.
Nobody is talking about suppressing platform articles, only thinking that there is room for more. Sammy D III (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of what? The Cavalier is much more than a rebadge which any buyer could spot, whether they care about cars or not, while also based on three different Opel models (Ascona, Manta, Vectra) - a badge engineered car which clearly deserves its own article. You also keep bringing up red herrings; this is not a question of shared platforms - The V. Vectra is literally identical to the Opel, with the only difference being the grille and stickers on the trunk.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stalemate. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're right, the marketing and cultural reception of a car may differ from country to country. But does only the fact that also the brand name differs, mean that you should then have separate English articles about the same car model? Because the Opel Vectra was also marketed in all kinds of countries, from Lapland in the north until the southern tip of Italy, from Ireland in the west until the Russian border in the east. And how it was marketed and received may have differed, or may not, but if it was relevant, it is/can be described in the English article. This is not different than for all other cars on the market that have only one brand. Erremm (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge, as it's just a rebadge model with no visual differences (differently from, example, the Vauxhall Carlton which nameplate was shared with two different cars, or the Cadillac Catera, which had more differences despite a Opel Omega badge engineered variant, who deserve their own articles). If there's a article for the Vauxhall Vectra, could have a article for the Vauxhall Zafira, Meriva, Adam, Tigra...who are just Opel badge engineerings 創新劇ゴジ SoshingekiGoji (talk)
  • Redirect to Opel Vectra per above. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2025 (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/Vauxhall_Vectra&oldid=1312204976"