Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roehig Motorsports


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Roehig Motorsports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significance. No sources. Promotional Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more discussion. , who should this be userfied to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * USERFY The subject might have merit but this article is poorly written and contains no sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The originator of the article, I guess? Perhaps with the suggestion that it be rewritten with references that are similar to other NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Teams wikipages? But offering such advice is a bit outside of my wheelhouse. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; an unsourced vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as essentially speedy delete material; there's not only, no sources, but no actual significant information as to how and why the article is convincing of keeping itself. SwisterTwister   talk  07:25, 16 September 2016 (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.