Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evo street racers


 * 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. JForget 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Evo street racers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organisation by a WP:SPA and WP:COI user, fail WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N guidelines Donnie Park (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep good amount of google news hits to establish notability, the other reasons the nom give are only reasons to improve, and not delete the article UltraMagnusspeak 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unfortunately, Evo Street Racing meets the criteria of WP:ORG,  (Note that the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution "Evo" will give you a lot of false Google hits).  However, this page requires close attention.  Representatives from this group have made many COI edits in order to advertise themselves on Wikipedia .  The website itself is filled with dubious claims and boasts exaggerating the importance of Evo Street Racing. , .  They also claim to be a reliable source of statistical reports using numbers and methods known only to them. .  I don't think Evo Street Racers is necessarily evil or anything; I think that perhaps they believe so strongly in the good of their mission that they are willing to bend rules and play with the truth a little.  --Dbratland (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. To be honest, I think rather than keep article which is in a poor state (more like a spam article than anycyclopedic which is what this article should be), we are better off deleting this and start with a clean sheet...is that what none of you think about - all you can think about is notability for a spam article which once all these are removed, you are left with very little left in this article.


 * IMO, User:ELandry1979 need to be told to keep his hands away from this and other related articles, if not he should be indefinitely blocked for a good measure so he can keep his hands away from having anything to spam. Donnie Park (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep With Revisions -- This is an established group with a good amount of media and other resources available on an at least modest pop-culture topic, so it would seem a tad off to have it deleted. It's a lot more data than a stub or a smaller headline in a larger article should probably have, so merging also seems out. It could use a rewrite for neutrality and some clean-up. The open citations needs a resource asap and probably needs removal per WP:WEASEL. "The most" is far too subjective in this case. Also, the author's account seems pretty single-use and is limited to either this article or the broader topic (and references to this group there), that's a separate matter and obviously hasn't been abused for promotion. I'll look at the larger Street Racing article (it's flagged for cleanup anyway) and see if there's any obvious self-promotion. A little improvement and this article doesn't seem like anything to worry about, and some of the search results off Google are things written by Law Enforcement mentioning benefits the group has offered. Ha. Datheisen (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the point I was recommending, I don't think it is worth keeping in this poor state, therefore it will need a clean sheet cleanup. What I did say was that it will need to be deleted then recreated with a clean sheet. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if all this cleanup can be done asap. Donnie Park (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Comment from the article's primary editor would be helpful in this regard to see what plans for changes would be. There is certainly no reason to delete the article with the tags addressed. I left a comment on the article's talk page about this, as well (in the section you created). Datheisen (talk) 22:37, 20 October 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.