Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podracing (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 and redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_air,_aquatic,_and_ground_vehicles. No noability asserted, and the article is just basically a big slab of original research. Will recreate as redirect, if there's anything useful to be said about the topic, it can be done there. Black Kite 20:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Podracing
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No hints of notability outside fictional world, not to mention all of it is original research. This article has had a few years for notability to be established, yet, nothing has changed. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom this is all original research, violates WP:NOR and in any case is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The previous AFD demonstrated notability. If you're uncomfortable with the level of OR, go ahead and remove the bits of the article you find offensive. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. The previous AFD demonstrates nothing.  The only thing that demonstrates notability is non-trivial coverage through reliable third party sources.  There are none.  This article will soon be deleted says JBdamus.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No, only reliable sources covering the subject demonstrate notability, and this article cites no sources at all, so it fails WP:V in addition to WP:N.  Sandstein   14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles as a likely search term. BryanG (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The previous AFD demonstrated notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you shouldn't have any problem fixing the article. The previous afd changed nothing, the article was left in disrepair.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Ret.Prof (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Daedalus: AFDs are imho not the best way of repairing poorly written articles. They are good at getting rid of topics that are not notable, though. To fix articles on notable topics, the talk page seems to work best imo. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry guys the vandal's right this time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.93.17 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Commenet See the article talk page for an example of the kind of attention it draws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.153.131 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 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.