Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotics Racing School


 * 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. Courcelles 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Exotics Racing School

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article was a candidate for G11. Is now a substantial recreation of the original article with no sources to help establish notability PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the Las Vegas Sun reference is solid. I found a passing reference in USA Today.  The article can be improved to eliminate spamishness and to add more sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep COI issues will still need copyediting and I can understand the concerns over spam claims. To justify this article for retention we seem to have two points left that it must still achieve:
 * Adequate multiple third-party refs? LV Sun is one, can we get another? What's the USA Today ref and can that be added?
 * Does it pass WP:MILL? Although running a racing school is probably more fun than most of us get in our day jobs, it's still just what racing schools do. Is this a notable racing school that has achieved more coverage than is due simply by being a business carrying on its normal tasks.
 * Incidentally, photographs. If this is a hugely COI promotional article, then the least we can expect is for its authors to upload some good images for it! And that means freely-licensed images to Wikimedia Commons, for the benfit of the whole project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. Twice Thrice-speedied already: why is this at AfD? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Equally, why is an article that two editors at AfD are inclined to keep being considered for speedy?
 * COI, yes. However that's a new editor unfamiliar with the arcane nature of WP and we still have to assume GF, even on newbies with businesses. What this ought to come down to is not how did it get here, but is this article an appropriate encyclopedic article on a notable topic? Anything else is a fix-up by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did I nominate it for SD? How about because it is reposted spam that had already been speedied three times and meets the criteria for speedy deletion? A clueless new user is one thing: an SPA who repeatedly reposts a spam article about his company after being told there's a problem with that is not simply a clueless new user, is not interested in getting the point, is not interested in building an encyclopedia, and is not interested in much, it appears, except using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise his company. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Category:Racing schools has 10 entries. Do we need to purge those too, or is there some distinguishing characteristic that makes some schools notable, others not? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's whether they've received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at those ten, only one, Buck Baker Racing School had adequate refs. Another has one ref, the rest are all now tagged as unreferenced. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * General issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless significantly better sources can be found. The Las Vegas Sun piece is almost certainly a straight copy of a press release from the company: it doesn't appear to have an author, and it reads as promotional puff. WP:NOTABILITY says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability [...] The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself [...] have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." 4u1e (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:4ule and at least one of the references goes towards establish the notability of the owner rather than the business. If a noted celebrity purchases a coffee shop, that does not transfer notability to the coffee shop. Perhaps the alternative action might be to move the article to Romain Thievin and re-write according to the more noteworthy aspect of the article. If the authoring edittor continues to re-spawn deleted articles then a block is additionally worthy of consideration. --Falcadore (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As failing to gain significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A single writeup in the Las Vegas Sun is essentially local coverage about a business that opened in the City.  I see no wider coverage of any sort. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2010 (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.