Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schumacher Racing Products (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. Most folks seem to agree the article is worthless in its current state, and looking at the article I can't see that there's any salvagable content. I'll close this as "delete", then, with less prejudice than normal toward a quick reinstatement, but only with abundant reliable sources and a new tone. I'll supply a copy of the deleted article to anybody who's interested in starting over. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Schumacher Racing Products
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Administrative listing, per Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_3 -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Original reason: Using Wikipedia for their sales catalogue. Massive prune needed, unclear if there's a notable company hiding within here at all.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain a reason to delete and so there is no case to answer. Andrew (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or heavily prune -- This AFD was closed as delete, following minimal discussion; then there was a deltion review, with a consensus to relist. That is what the Admin did.  A company with 30 staff might just be notable, if its products are widely distributed.  My view is that this is essentially an ADVERT by a company of dubious notability.  Andrew's reason is misplaced.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The complaint seems to be that the article reads too much like an advert. This is not a reason to delete because it may be addressed by ordinary editing, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.  As there is still no policy-based reason to delete, my position is unchanged. Andrew (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete too much an advert/product listing (complete with item numbers and prices!). All that's missing is a bunch of "Click here to buy now!!" buttons. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepI have just noticed this review why has this been nominated again the discussion has only just finished and the page hasn't even been updated to reflect the previous discussion. (I have just done the first edit and updated the page but will add more sources) If you want to delete it then please nominate all similar pages for other manufacturers to! It isn't an advert 99% of the product aren't in production it is a history of what the company produced which is of interest to hobbyist interested in the sport. yachty4000 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well known and popular RC brand. The article does read like an advert but that is not a reason to delete, it needs copy editing. Szzuk (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Famous brand. Famous, not just notable. The listing of products is however too detailed, and considerable editing is needed.   DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Draftify and require AfC - There seems to be complete consensus here on two points--the topic is notable, the content is deplorable. As such, I recommend restoring/userfying the article to Draft status, and allow it to be recreated if and only if it is able to pass our AfC process.  While out of process, this addresses both the nobility issue question and the desire to not fill the encyclopedia with advertising. As an alternate, speedy delete G11 as if that criteria were presumed to be met, but permit recreation so long as G4 is not met. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete — contrary to 's interpretation of policy, the deletion policy clearly applies on several prongs, including WP:NOTDIR, WP:SPAM, and WP:NPOV. While the article technically can be fixed (as many things WP:CSD-worthy), it's difficult for me to imagine, despite the first low-turnout AfD, a DRV, and the resulting ardent input from DRV-haunters, that that will happen with any certainty. At the very least, this passionate indifference toward addressing severe policy violations turns this article into what is clearly a "severe case" worthy of deletion, because literally all forms of dispute resolution and content building have apparently failed up until this point. No prejudice against recreation should the fundamental policy violations be addressed at some point in the indefinite future. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete  is spot on, not only is this blantent advertising, it is heavily detailed blatant advertising.  Under CSD G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."  While the brand is famous enough to warrant inclusion and would possibly fail a CSD, this is purely promotional on every level. The subject might be worthy an article, but as this is written, it needs to be re-written from scratch to make it anywhere close to encyclopedic.  ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪   ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  04:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is also mostly self-sourced and reads like a catalog/flyer (complete with SKU numbers and prices!) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  05:07, 25 June 2014 (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.