Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCAR Criticism


 * 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, and consider moving to Criticism of NASCAR per naming conventions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR Criticism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Much of it is Unsourced, it contains large amounts of Original Research, and blatantly violates WP:NPOV.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article also Violates this Guideline here: Content forking  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as a POV fork. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rename it's not a POV fork, it's a page split. See NASCAR and WP:SPINOUT. It should be moved to Criticism of NASCAR to keep in line with naming conventions, but the content is perfectly acceptable - Koweja (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I read that part and DOn't get how it passes this part here: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This article here clearly fails that has the NPOV issues were not resolved and therefore it is a violation of Content forking.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Koweja captures how I view this.  I assure you this was NOT a POV fork.  I have no investment in any of that content; I pulled the content out of the NASCAR article to tighten the NASCAR article up (and made that note at the time, both in the NASCAR article talk and in the NASCAR Criticism talk, which I established at the time I created it), not to delete the content _ which is appropriate.  While I didn't know what that was called when I did it, Kaweja shows me here that this is a split, ala WP:SPINOUT.  As to the concern about the article being unsourced, there are 17 references in this article, with footnotes for almost every section.  Most wikipedia article could stand more reference, and this article may be no exception there, but it surely isn't unreasonable and doen't meet the grounds for a deletion ("...cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources...", "...all attempts to find reliable sources...have failed", etc.). If anything, this concern should be met with the appropriate tag. - Thaimoss (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (follow-up) Additional agreement with Koweja regarding the naming. The section in the original NASCAR article was (I believe) simply "Criticism".  I chose "NASCAR Criticism" without adequate consideration of any possible convention.  In fact, believe it or not, I was thinking about this while out on errands today, and thought to myself "I think I named that wrong".  Criticism of NASCAR is suggested by Koweja, and is surely more appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaimoss (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Either keep with keeping only whatever can be adequately sourced or merge back into main article NASCAR. Under no circumstances should this article be completely deleted without its content being accessible to those contributors who are to fix this article. People who had an ax to grind with NASCAR went crazy in the section. This section was WAY too long when it was part of the NASCAR article - past the point that it made the article unbalanced. Spliting was a reasonable way to deal with that problem. The final judge as to what content should remain should be decided by consensus at WikiProject NASCAR. Royal broil  05:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article covers both internal and external criticism, and is relevant to fans and non-fans alike. This business about "POV forking" is a red herring: at present, there are no unresolved NPOV disputes that I'm aware of. Furthermore, the content which was spun off was replaced with an NPOV summary. The content is too long to merge back into the main article and outright deletion is uncalled for. Rename if necessary but don't delete. Simishag (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back into NASCAR, trimming it by two-thirds. Wikipedia guidelines discourage "Criticism of XXX" articles unless the criticism itself was widely reported and discussed by multiple independent sources.  I don't believe that these various complaints have been more widely covered than "criticism of NHL", "criticism of Heinz", and any other public organizations; certainly not comparable to Criticism of Wal-Mart.  Instead I see this article as giving undue weight to one side, since there's no "Wonderful things people say about NASCAR" article.  As for the POV-fork argument, most of the assertions aren't that some aspect of the sanctioning body is proven dangerous by facts; they're things like "Danny Drivefast didn't like the Car of Tomorrow at its first race" and "Connie Commentator thinks they throw phantom-debris cautions to group the cars", i.e., POV. Barno (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reasonable case of splitting a criticism section into a separate article. NPOV is not a problem as long as all the sources are reliable.  If there are well-sourced apologetics, they can be added.  Disputed unreferenced criticisms can be removed, but it will still leave enough material to justify keeping as its own article.  I concur that it should be renamed to Criticism of NASCAR per convention.  &mdash;dgies tc 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems reasonably well sourced and is a legitimate split of the main article. --rogerd (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject NASCAR was informed of this ongoing discussion on 31 December 2007. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (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.