Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Park Speedway


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Riverside Park Speedway
Note: this article was dramatically stubbed due to a suspected copyright violation, the current article does not resemble the version nominated. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think this is borderline prod. But maybe its length and amount of content can possibly save it. But the main reason why it's going to AfD is simple: there isn't even an article about Riverside Park and everything about it is contained in Six Flags New England. Not to mention not a single source or even a category. --Sigma Epsilon Chi (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) The article in Six Flags New England doesn't contain this detail about the stock car track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.196.254 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep. I see a lot less about the speedway at Six Flags New England than in its own article. I would think that NASCAR venues would be notable, like other types of stadiums. turns up at least one article with the speedway as its main focus. --NE2 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Google news search shows sources supporting its notability.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Common Sense Keep The track exists, you can watch the video on unreliable sources (youtube), gets 8k hits, and likely there was plenty written about it in newspapers. The problem is that if we can't find it in 5 minutes on the web, we assume it isn't notable (I do the same, we all do).  The policy on notability says the subject matter must be "verifiable".  Not "verified".  I would bet my lunch money it can be verified, using newspapers in New England from the 50s.  Those are not online.  It was a NASCAR track, I am pretty sure it got press, and my confidence that reliable source exist (which is what the policy requires) but will take a while to locate (which is ok, read WP:DEADLINE).  Common sense says it has to be notable, even though I have never heard of it before, so I have to vote keep.  In short, show me one NOT notable track running NASCAR, and I might change my mind.   P HARMBOY   ( moo )  01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable regional attraction, generating ample revenue in the area (ie. presumption of notability), albeit hard to Cite this fact. I am confident that a gnews search will find usefull RS's. A Article Cleanup is recommended. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: There isn't a separate article about Riverside Park because if there was, it would be proper to be folded into the Six Flags article. By contrast, the independent notability of the track is no more an irreductible part of Riverside Park than the Hartford Civic Center was of the shopping mall of which it was once a part.    RGTraynor  05:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedway venues are just as notable as football, soccer and baseball stadiums (or perhaps a better comparison F1 circuits). - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  as copy violation of . Site claims it was the original info from the track website that was pulled over when the track closed.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Good catch by Gtstricky. I checked, and found a copy of the track's website at archive.org here that predates our page. In the absence of anything showing its release into the public domain, I've returned the subject article to the last version before the copyvio, which as you can see is a stub. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:14, 28 October 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.