Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTspirit (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

GTspirit
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Since I last nominated this article for deletion and opted to have it withdrawn to allow for improvement, almost four months on, looking at the edit, I wondered why did I bother to throw an lifeline to it in the first place when it could had left it to fend itself off with the wikilions.

Since then, this editor have not bothered to make an effort to improve its notability since, the only form of notability this website can manage to claim is having a picture credited to them submitted to be show on Fox News website, which is nothing new. As this seems to be an despite attempt to get an Wikipedia article here rather than look for more reliable third party sources to make this article notable, this why it I thrown it back to the Wikipedia Ring of Death again for the reason that it failed WP:WEB and that I feel the editor is taking the Mickey as I said on the talk page which he did not bother to address the issue. Donnie Park (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Donnie Park (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I must first of all state that I am one of those people that doesn't find a single car I've seen on their site the slightest bit desirable. (OK, I would accept any of them as a gift but would try to sell it as quickly as possible...) I think there could be notability in the subject, but it would take a set of proper references to prove it. The current lot look impressive at a glance, but if you look closer they mainly come from their own site, and the rest don't exactly do much. I'm not knocking the site - it's well done and looks fine for those who like window-shopping and are impressed by BHP and $$$. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, these cars to boys are like fashion to girls, another overindulgent things we can do without should the next economic apocalypse be around the corner. As for notability, has this editor made an effort. Donnie Park (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say they've tried, but don't understand WP:RS - may not have heard of it. Might be an idea to contact them and explain. Makes us look fair, and may end up with a better article. Me, I'm off to prove that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs (assuming I've got eggs in the fridge...). Peridon (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone back through the article and added references by other media outlets in relation to content that has proved their popular. I do however feel that personal opinions on the websites content shouldn't be a factor on whether the article stays or goes. Of course its not to everyone's taste or appeal, but nothing on wikipedia can say that it is. At the end of the day I saw that similar sites had wiki pages and thought I would create one in the same mold as theirs e.g. Jalopnik, where most of their references are to Jalopnik's website hence not referencing to other sites until now. Any suggestions on how to improve the article via WP:RS are of course welcomed as it's not something I fully understand.Dave logic (talk) 14:58 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there is a Wikipedia article about a website with questionable notability, does that mean you should create an article about a similar website with questionable notability? Looking at the article since I opted to withdraw the nomination, first of all, looking at the references, none of the picture credits there counts as notability as all they are, are nothing but mere mentions, references to the website that is associated with the website does not count as reliable third party sources. Because these edits made it look like another non-notable car website without any third party coverage to make it look notable other than picture credits, this is the reason why as well as that because I made a comment on the talk section some times ago, that was ignored even after the 1 April warning, therefore for that I felt that my request was taken for granted, I had no choice but to drag this back to AfD with the understanding that this was never a notable website in the first place as there is no proof of notability for a start and don't worry about Jalopnik, because this is under consideration for deletion nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the WP:RS policy. Basically, reviews or articles mainly about the site are needed, but not in blogs, forums, wikis, your own site or anything else connected to it, or anything that uses subject-supplied info - like AboutUs, LinkedIn or press releases (including PRWire and the like). Things that just mention the site are no good - needs a good paragraph at minimum and not just the owner giving an 'interview' that is a disguised plug. My disclaimer about the cars was intended to bolster my feeling that there could be notability, and to stress that I wasn't just saying that because I am a fan of that sort of motor. I have driven Bentley GT, Porsche Carrera and the like - and honestly prefer the battered Vauxhall Magnum 2300 I once had. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Just looked at the refs. What we DON'T need is anything about the cars themselves - they can be linked to their articles here. References that only talk about them are a waste of space when notability for the site is the question. I like the Koenigsegg one a bit - it's not a review but it shows to me that they value the site. It's the site that needs the reviews or similar. Peridon (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Strong Delete - as per many of the above comments, there is nothing at all of note in the sources about GTspirit. Is is almost entirely referenced to its own website or press releases, for example the Koenigsegg link. The Telegraph article is a report of the Fox News article (also cited without dates) which only briefly mentions GTSpirit. What is needed is proof of other reliable sources talking about GTSpirit in-depth. A lot of the article should have been removed by now, for example the grand uncited claims in the opening lede paragraph! Sionk (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I completely agree with the WP:N and the WP:IRS criticism, the article also appears to me to have been easily tagged for WP:SPEEDY as G11 WP:PromoNewmanoconnor (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by sionk and BusterD, as well as self-marketing ad copy. I suppose if the article were fixed it'd be okay, but... nothing on Google news but the site itself.Marikafragen (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2012 (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.