Talk:The Stig's identity

Notes on this new article
I Just finished compiling this article about the stigs identity. I understand based on the discussion pages that some of the material in the article may be controversial. I tried to tread as lightly as possible but im sure i slipped up at least once. I also need some help with links to outside articles. Also someone might want to expand on the lewis hamilton section. I beleive that there is a better chance that he was at least the stig who accomplished the recored lap times due to the fact that his rain time is very close to the 1.44.4 that the stig scored. This is important because hamilton races better than most in the rain. I knew this wasn't solid evidence but i figured someone might find a way to tastefully and factually include it. If anyone has a problem with this page please don't just delete it because of it's controversial content. I know this has been done before on the stig article and I think these descisions should be more widely voiced on this discussion page. Finally, I deleted the origional article from the main Stig page. I tried to include everything but if anyone notices some missing facts that were included previously please include them --TheRealVolucrix (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Material that is unreferenced or not verifiable, or is own research/interpretation should not be included in articles - these are core policies of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. WP:SOURCES WP:NOR Halsteadk (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability
If this gets sent to AfD - does it have a snowballs chances in hell of getting through, or is it all going to get merged back into The Stig? I'm half tempted to send it to see, but I think the ongoing cultural debate in the UK (which, no, I don't have sources for - but go into any pub and you'll find someone with an opinion on it) might be enough to prop it up. --RedHillian (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're talking about what I did, Reference it back to the stig article, is it better now--TheRealVolucrix (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think it's a valid article, but I'm not sure if we'd get consensus to keep it in an Articles for Deletion debate, or if it would all just get merged back into the original article at The Stig. --RedHillian (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why all this isn't in The Stig anyway. There's no good reason it shouldn't be in the main article that I can see. - mattbuck 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)