Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardcoreracefans


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardcoreracefans

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

CSDed twice for G11 - Spam and A7 - NN-Web, the latter action by me. When it was created a third time, I tagged it DB-web to get a 3rd opinion. This was removed by a non-admin who said the author's talk page arguments were persuasive. So be it, but I still am not persuaded. So IMHO we still have a somewhat spammy article that does nto meet the WP:WEB requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * delete No independent verification besides PR stuff and self-promotion. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt - Not notable already! And, G11 material still IMHO.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Single purpose account, advertising tone, nothing left to keep. Do not salt. Not speedy material, AFD is the right venue.  Royal broil  03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be notable, and most assuredly feels like advertising. At the very least needs a substantial cleanup if it meets notability, which I don't feel it does.Tyrenon (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Salt per nominator --Ryan Delaney talk 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The promoting on the page comes across more as promoting its own validity and existence on Wikipedia, rather than promoting the actual magazine. Add in a reference to the ESPN recommending it, and I think it would qualify as notable. Zivlok (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:WEB, and searches to find reliable sources writing about this site turn up nothing of substance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Salt per the above for repeated recreation of WEB-failing subject. Eusebeus (talk) 12:25, 28 May 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.