Deletion of Bugatti Vision Gran Turismo

Comment: Just after a couple of seconds of searching I found two of the independent and reliable sources MB found.  I doubt  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  by claiming as such. ( also applies to non-mainspace content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NOR||WP:BLP)

Comment: Vehicle is notable and easily passes |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Plenty of reliable sources per above. Industry sources like auto publications satisfy  or at least don't inherently ''not'' satisfy it as mentioned above. They're considered independent, or at least these are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per lack of . It is sufficient to click the "news" link below the title discussion, and Google News shows 8,100 "recent" news about the car https://www.google.it/search?q=%22Bugatti+Vision+Gran+Turismo%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Yw3NV8CnJaHD8gfO-q-4CQ#q=%22Bugatti+Vision+Gran+Turismo%22&tbm=nws&start=0 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)