Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Sharp


 * 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. Even those saying Keep reinforce the WP:TOOSOON argument with statements such as "He will no doubt be moving up to different classes soon." Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Louis Sharp

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

All sources are either databases or primary sources, i.e. in this case sources by the organisers of the races or the sport, not independent sourcing. He may well become notable, but this seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport,  and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is fully sourced, he is one of the front runners in the championship, having taken a victory and he is notable in the TOCA world. Article has plenty of information and plenty of sources, if it was deleted it would probably be created again in 1-2 years, there isn’t really a reason to delete it. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 8:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Article is fully sourced"? We have at the moment:
 * Formulafirst.co.nz, the website of the organisation he raced in (Formula First)
 * South Island Formula Ford website of the organisation he raced in (and just a stats database anyway)
 * Motorsport.org.nz, the motorsport organization of NZ
 * Fifa Formula 4, the organiser of the races
 * Another page from Fifa Foumula 4
 * Driverdb.com, a database
 * While these sources are reliable, none of them do anything to establish notability, as none of them are independent sources, all are promoting or talking about their own organisations. What is needed are substantial independent sources. Fram (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * List substantial independent sources that I could use for this, as you forget, Louis lives in New Zealand, which is smaller than most countries, so it doesn't have very many independent sources. List every single source that I could use, or put them in yourself. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ....is this...trolling? JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ? ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were demanding an editor list all the independent news media in NZ that could be acceptable for GNG. That is a ridiculous thing to ask... JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added two references from Formula Scout but am unsure on what other independent sources I would be looking at here. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Another article being made WP:TOOSOON about a random child. Some WP:ROUTINE coverage shows up from reliable independent sources like Formula Scout, but it's nowhere near enough to meet the standards needed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This delete message is coming from someone with no interest in Motorsport, clearly. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would kindly recommend you to keep your mouth shut and stop attacking every user who doesn't share the same view as you do. It can help you for the future. To consider taking another look at the coverage Sharp has. What comes up first in a quick search is all WP:ROUTINE but if you dig a bit deeper, there is some SIGCOV. I have included some of it in my vote comment. MSport1005 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've said to others, its called frustration, with the same person always submitting it for deletion and telling me different stories. First time they said it could be deleted because it had no sources and he did not have a win, which both now don't apply and they claim independent sources is the problem and he's still not notable. I am sorry but you can't tell me things contrary to what you've already said, it makes you a hypocrite. That is what the frustration is for. He also claims Sharp is a random child, which is quite rude I must admit. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (To Clarify, most of my frustration is towards Fram, not HumanBodyPiloter5, as Fram is the one whos submitted it for deletion multiple times, it just happens HumanBodyPiloter5 annoyed me at that moment in time so I do apologise) ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm I think I see one source of confusion? The article DID always need to meet GNG (which mandates independent sources etc.), but the timeline for actually demonstrating that with sources in the article depends on when an editor actually notices it and decides to look deeper into the notability. There are several red flags that can catch a patrolling editor's attention. If I had to guess, the first time was because it had no sources and no claim to notability, making it suitable for speedy deletion per WP:A7. At that time, the "claim to notability" could have included a win per the motorsport SNG -- it wouldn't have removed the need for the article to meet GNG eventually, but it also wouldn't have been a candidate for speedy, and if sourced would likely not have been noticed so quickly. Surviving speedy deletion/New Page Patrol doesn't require fully demonstrating notability the way an AfD generally does, so that's maybe why you got different reasons for deletion. Also, if the first deletion came before March 2022, the criteria allowing a new sportsperson biography to avoid scrutiny from AfC/NPP actually WERE different than they are now: WP:NSPORTS2022 updated the guideline to require at least one independent RS with SIGCOV in all athlete articles from the start (and this is just if the subject's notability isn't challenged; if brought to AfD the subject still needs to demonstrate GNG is met) rather than just a sourced claim of meeting an NSPORT criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have put a substantial amount of effort into this, and would like you to realise Louis has reviewed the page and confirmed all the stats are correct and up to date. Louis is a capable and competent driver, who would've won SI1600 had he not been pulled into F4, and he already has a win and sits 5th in the standings despite missing Donington. He is a clear front runner and does not fall under notability, as you guys protested he had no wins so he wasn't notable, he now has a win so clearly that is irrelevant, the sources are good and correct and mostly run independently with some help from others here and there. I don't see what your problem is here as this is clearly a page that will be here as said by DRYT Motorsport within the next year anyways. He's a clear talent, beating Georgi Dimitrov who has a wiki page, which again takes out notability. He will no doubt be moving up to different classes soon. I would like you to explain what you want me to do to change this, rather than submitting this for deletion over and over again. It's disgraceful that you don't bother to even help with the changes and just instead keep submitting it for deletion. I understand you have to follow Wikipedia's policies but helping out and making changes or suggesting at the very very least would be helpful. I'd like you to reconsider this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcordeAAIB (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This makes it sound as if you have a conflict of interest, frankly. Your unprovoked personal attack against HumanBodyPiloter5 will also do you no favours. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  04:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a statement, not an attack, get your facts straight. You also fail to address any of my other points. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you would also have to understand my frustration, which is why some of these statements may come out sounding like personal attacks, but are frustration. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a database nor is it a crystal ball. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  04:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does not matter how many motorsport achievements someone has, if multiple reliable independent sources have not covered them in significant detail then we do not have an article on them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is contrary to what I was told. Apparently because he did not have a win he was not notable, which is not the case now, I can't find any independent sources on Georgi Dimitrov either, you guys can't keep commenting on new pages when existing pages also need to be revamped. You can't also make the excuse that your jumping on these because they are new, well other pages were new once yet still stick around. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ConcordeAAIB the relevant guideline is WP:NSPORT, which requires GNG. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would result in either no articles ever being deleted, or a bundled mass deletion of all such articles. And perhaps Georgi Dimitrov also needs to be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article should really be draftified. Deleting it is a ridiculous idea, and this is one of the reasons of the draft feature: articles that are not yet ready/notable, but will be in the future. Louis Sharp seems quite promising in British F4, and he currently has some significant coverage, but not enough, as supposed to nothing. Deleting this would very likely end up in it being created again in a year or two, when it could just be drafted until then. That’s what’s been done with fellow F4 driver Draft:Eduardo Coseteng, why should it not be done for Sharp? If he becomes notable in the future which is very likely, it can be turned back into one. It seems absurd to delete it when it could just become a draft for the time being. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was draftified, but ConcordeAAIB moved it back to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved it back because the problem according to you was he didn't have a win so he wasn't notable and there wasn't sources, which both now don't apply, I'd understand independent sources if you had mentioned that but you just said general sources and said he needed a win to be notable. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Outcome of this should really be a draftificafion. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify - Honestly not so sure about this one. Seems to have gained decent WP:SIGCOV in New Zealand and is certainly a very promising talent, but he's not quite at the level required to meet NMOTORSPORT. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the independent sources should be enough to oppose deletion. MSport1005 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the summaries above, we require verifiable information from reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject (i.e. Independent). I don't believe the article is suitable in Drafts because it isn't that the structure/content of the article needs improving but that there are no qualifying references to establish notability. Drafts isn't a suitable storage space for topics which are not fundmentally notable.  HighKing++ 14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We require verifiable information from reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject (i.e. Independent). [...] there are no qualifying references to establish notability — are you sure you have read the comments above properly? MSport1005 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have. Is there any reference in particular you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? Happy to discuss and WP:HEY if you've seen something I'm missed.  HighKing++ 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Formula Scout is there, however drafting this might be the best cause of action, because that way we can all work on it collectively before we put it on the main space. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about Formula Scout because that is WP:ROUTINE. I'm talking about the 5 independent sources I've cited in my draftify vote comment because those are the ones that can establish WP:SIGCOV. MSport1005 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, take the first source headlined "Motorsport: Kiwi teen prodigy Louis Sharp signs dream deal with Carlin in British Formula 4". What is "Independent" about it? It is based on an announcement and the exact same content of the announcement was covered by umpteen different publications all around the same date. Just regurgitating the same announcement and quotes. For me, that's WP:ROUTINE.  HighKing++ 12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent as in independent from the subject? Do you not understand the meaning of that? "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article", note the word routine. NZ Herald isn't a dedicated motorsport newspaper and covers the announcement because of Sharp. The four you cited cover it because it's a feeder series announcement. Not to mention that the first and fourth aren't even secondary. MSport1005 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think best course of action is to draft this, so any problems that people have can be discussed in a talk page, and we can all collectively work on it regarding these issues, ie notability, too soon, sources etc, rather than delete hard work, only for it to be made again in the next few years anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcordeAAIB (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 June 2022 (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.