Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Hingeley


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  13:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ben Hingeley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of multiple significant, independent, secondary non-routine coverage, and all criteria of the new WP:NMOTORSPORT. The article contains a WP:ROUTINE coverage from the team he particiapted for (hence not independent of the subject), and my searches bring similiar announcements. Seems to have retired from racing after 2019, so it's unlikely something will change. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - A WP:BEFORE search returns some WP:ROUTINE coverage from reliable, independent sources (such as this Motorsport.com article), but none of it seems to be significant in nature. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — I'm fairly surprised that a driver of his quality got nominated. Indeed he retired for lack of funds in 2019, but ultimately that shouldn't matter if he's relevant for what he did until then. Interestingly, if deleted, he would be the only 2018 European F3 driver without a wiki page. A quick WP:BEFORE search returns, and , with  and  from his karting days. I believe  and  work towards establishing SIGCOV too (they're not WP:ROUTINE as not all European F3 signings were covered by these websites). More could probably be found with a more in-depth search, but it's difficult among so much ROUTINE coverage. Meets GNG but the article really needs to be improved. MSport1005 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment voting speedy keep on this is absolutely ridiculous, as he doesn't really meet any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He didn't really do actually anything notable, nor there's "quality" you are speaking of. That he'd be the only European F3 without an article is an useless fact (and there are more that should be nominated). As for the sources you posted: 1) he was a WRDA member, meaning it's not an independent source, 2) quote galore (meaning again, not independent) in what's a source of unclear reliability, 3) not a significant coverage + seems to be a blog about local things in Abergele, 4) is basically quotes from his dad + 3 sentences and 5) doesn't meet what's said in WP:SPORTCRIT ("Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage.", it's local and this is a race report coverage). 6) is WP:ROUTINE (we are talking about routine events here, that is a signing to a team), and 7) is the same as 6) + doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I did a lot of digging, but I didn't find multiple sources that'd give him notability per WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'quality' bit is just an opinion, I always saw Hingeley as a good driver hindered by sub-par machinery and a lack of budget. Not that it matters anyway, I just never imagined him being nominated. On the other hand, anything that you don't recognise doesn't necessarily "seem unreliable", that's just prejudicial scepticism. Check WP:NOTROUTINE too. MSport1005 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I understand the context now, thank you for explaining it. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, since I didn't want to come out that way. My stance about (un)reliable sources stands: Automobil Sport doesn't even have a team/staff page, Abergele Post is a blog handled by Gareth Morlais, and RNW doesn't give me many hopes reading the staff page. There's no bias or prejudice from my side (that's absurd), it's all opinionated on something. Also thank you for showing me that essay, but I am not a fan of essays, nor do I agree with it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Umm... you were making very fair points until that last sentence. MSport1005 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's all you're saying as a reply, those "fair points" didn't really do anything. Essays are only viewpoints (and my disagreement with some of them has no bearing on this AfD). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG. The fact he also fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, and the fact he is currently inactive indicates that future WP:POTENTIAL for passing GNG is extremely low. GNG also doesn't care about whether or not 1 or 2 drivers of a junior championship are missing. Notability is not inherited. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  23:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have compiled a source assessment table to justify my rationale, based on sources provided by in this discussion. - "Ghost  of  Dan Gurney"  00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty complete assessment, thank you. I have now found these  which are announcements but not necessarily ROUTINE,   covering the same topic with less precision (not as confident about them),  in anticipation of his GP3 test (the original article at motorsport-news.co.uk isn't accessible anymore, I've tried rescuing it at web.archive.org to no avail),  originally from a local paper covering single-seater win and championship lead, and  an interview from early 2018. Still stand by my keep !vote although the 'speedy' was a bit overzealous from my side. MSport1005 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – I can see why MSport1005 sees this as a keep case, but I have to disagree. The coverage in the article and provided by MSport1005 does not satisfy the requirements of the GNG, which is quite plainly shown in GhostOfDanGurney's assessment table. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:39, 24 January 2022 (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.