Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Sharpie 500


 * 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. (former-admin close) closing this a little early concensus is clear Secret account 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 Sharpie 500

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not a notable topic Kazakhnational3millionsbbbbbbbb (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed - non-notable event, though part of a more notable series that deserves coverage. Incidentally, there are another 20+ linked articles in the side box that should be included here. Emeraude (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Individual events in top-tier motorsports are generally considered notable, though that seems to be more of a convention than a specific policy. For example, every single event in Formula 1 and IndyCar has it's own article with a text description of the event, qualifying and race results, and point standings after. Example here. NASCAR Sprint Cup races get equivalent coverage in the press (greater in the US), so I'd think the same convention would apply. I will agree though that the NASCAR editors are not as on the ball as in other series. Some of the articles are fleshed out while others (like this one) are stubs. Kuguar03 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Oppose" is ambiguous. This is not a debating society, in any event.  See Guide to deletion for how to express yourselve unambiguously at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal, i.e., Keep. Sorry if I used the wrong term as I've been more active in move discussions lately. But there's no ambiguity there, just as there's none in "Agreed", which is also not one of the proper recommendations, though you didn't feel compelled to call Emeraude out for that. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – The article isn't in great shape now, but I disagree strongly that the topic isn't notable. For any top-level NASCAR race held any time recently, there's going to be plenty of coverage in reliable sources to base an article on. This isn't limited to typical news coverage either; many outlets provide analysis on the races. WP:NSPORTS leaves motor race notability up to interpretation, and to me Sprint Cup races are notable. I'm also concerned about the precedent this could set, considering that nine of the 2010 Sprint Cup race pages are classified as good articles.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - This article may not be in good condition right now, but if it is brought to the attention of a task force related to NASCAR, it is likely that it can be improved and made more like other pages for NASCAR races. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - All Sprint Cup Series race articles arre notable, as because it is the premier series. I can easily make it a start because I immediately know where all the sources are.  Nascar  1996   16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found the main reference...the summary for the race. Now the only hard part is probably the news articles, for quotes, but the article can be improved since I found this reference. Also all the practice references, I have also found. This article now has the potential for good article status.  Nascar  1996   17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Nascar1996.  WAYNE  SLAM  17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Wayne Slam was canvassed here about this deletion discussion by Nascar1996. It also appears that both The Utahraptor and Tofutwitch11, who have both edited Wayne Slam's talk page recently, also came here because of the note and two of the three keeps have been "per Nascar1996". There may be an explanation, but until one is given, I think the closing admin should have serious concerns about how much weight to give these !votes. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the above note. Nascar1996 contected me on my talk about it and I can definitely see now why he left that note on Wayne Slam's talk. However, I would ask Wayne Slam (and, to a lesser extent, the two editors below) that if they have been asked to comment on an AfD by an editor, if they are choosing to !vote the same way as editor that notified them of the discussion, then they should provide a rationale, rather than simply giving an as per the person who contacted me !vote. Having said all that, I wholeheartedly apologise for an aspersions I may have cast on any editors in my above (now struck) statement. Jenks24 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if sources can be found. A stub of that size isn't necessarily non-notable. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Nascar1996 and The Utahraptor. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as this was a bad faith nomination to begin with.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.