Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drift: The Sideways Craze


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Drift: The Sideways Craze

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources writing about this documentary. - Whpq (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as niche field Discovery Channel high definition documentary film covered in niche articles about racing techniques.. Article should be tagged for expansion and sourcing, not deletion. We need us some NASCAR Wikipedians to work on this 'un. (or is that an contradiction in terms?)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those sources show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a niche documentary and needs niche experts from the world of auto racing. I will WP:AGF that considering the fact that Discovery Channel put it out, that they likely exist. I do not have to find them.  I do not have to show them. I do not have to repeatedly WP:RESCUE articles when other editors are not inclined to do so. Not being an expert in that field of auto racing, I only need assume that they likely exist. You need not WP:AGF, as that is your perogative. Which do you find easier to do... nominating an article for deletion even when it might be improved, or actually improving it yourself per WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that I could improve it because none of the results that I found would make it pass WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But if others could have improved it?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With most articles that get deleted, no one will know. Schuym1 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most articles that go to AFD might have been improved in the future. If people didn't nominate articles that might be improved in the future, then there would not be much of a need for WP:AFD. You are not assuming good faith towards me. Schuym1 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they get deleted, they will never be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. Schuym1 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To my perhaps incorrect understanding, AfD is the last resort for articles for which there is absolutely no hope, and not to be used to force improvement or force a merge even when wiki has no deadline for improvememnts. It is my perhaps incorrect understanding that if there was even the merest possibility that an article might be improved, then it should be tagged for cleanup or expansion or sourcing or rescue... as per WP:ATD. But maybe I am wrong... and maybe its time to disband the Rescue Squad and we can all stop trying to rescue this stuff. So I asked you the question... which is easier for you, writing an article that someone sends to AFD, fixing an article at AfD, or nominating one for deletion? If your answer is you nominate because you cannot yourself improve an article, fine. But do you then nominate only because you don't think it can be improved... or only because you are unable to yourself? No bad faith in my question, as I want you to better understand what AfD is really all about.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't make sense. First you say that it is fine if I nominate it because I can't improve it myself then after that you say "But do you then nominate only because you don't think it can be improved... or only because you are unable to yourself?". It is impossible for anyone to determine what you specifically mean. I know that articles can possibilly be improved in the future. But I don't think that it is right to !vote keep when no one knows for sure. The articles might not get improved and sit around forever without any significant improvements. I nominate articles for deletion because I can't improve them myself. Schuym1 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know and I repeatedly ignore that. If people always went by that, there wouldn't be much of a need for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question "writing an article that someone sends to AFD, fixing an article at AfD, or nominating one for deletion" is bull. It's the same way for everyone: 1st: Writing an article that gets to AFD, 2nd: Nominating an article, and 3rd: fixing an article. Schuym1 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No bull, as I myself have halped rescue at least three of your own articles that got sent to AfD. Fixing is supposed to be BEFORE AfD, not as a result of AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied literally for fun because I didn't know what you meant. (as I said below). Maybe I should have added the beginning which is "which is easier for you". Schuym1 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That above was me being literal. I don't know what you mean by that. Schuym1 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What actually is bull is that you want to teach me what AFD is all about. Many users have different opinions about that. Schuym1 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I was seeking your reasonings. Now I have them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which depends on if you are an inclusionist, a deletionist, or something in between. Schuym1 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The improvement of wikipedia is the goal. Not inclusionism or deletionism.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that many editors have different opinions about what that is. "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge" my butt. Schuym1 (talk)
 * Yes, "The Sum" is pretty much an impossible task. But just because you could not find sources does not mean they are do not exist. AfD's do weed out some utter crap... and rightly so. I am not a NASCAR afficienado, so I opined a "weak keep" because there might be one editing wiki who knows just where to look. If its gone in 4 days no one will ever be looking. If its tagged for cleanup and expansion, someone might actually do so.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. They might exist. Mostly every article might have significant coverage in reliable sources. Someone might improve it. You should discuss this with most other AFD particpators and not just me. Schuym1 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? I am. My comments and thoughts on the matter are here now for everyone and anyone who reads this page. But as of yet, no one else has opined. I had made my initial comment above with my "weak keep" and have been underfire ever since.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not understand my point at all. Schuym1 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the many points? That you sent it to be deleted because you could not yourself find sources? Or that if an article is not improved within some set timeframe it should get booted?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE - The AFD discussion if for the merits of the article. Let's keep things focused on the topic.  If you want to discuss philosophy of inclusionism or deletionism, take it to your talk pages.  Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: agree with nominator WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge No reason to lose this content all together from the encyclopedia. This isn't some myspace homemade movie. If it doesn't have enough notability for an independent article then let's merge/ mention it in the appropriate article on the subject. Certainly it's worth including in some fashion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (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.