Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield Raceway


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Springfield Raceway

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Single ref is local newspaper being "friendly." Appears to be WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps send it through a WP:PR, since the nominator seems to love using that as a reason for deletion ;-) Jeni  ( talk ) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Would you like to cite any policy grounds upon which to advocate keeping the article? As far as I can see, launching a personal attack on the nom is not generally considered a valid one.  That aside, there are zero sources and zero hits on G-News to anything beyond race results in the local newspaper.   Ravenswing  15:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - A look for sources results in lots of adverts for the track in the paper... no reliable sources that discuss the track in any detail. Notability not established. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - The above comment was made here as a result of blatant canvassing Jeni  ( talk ) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. Though consensus at this point slightly leans to the "delete" side, I'm concerned that one of the !votes may have been canvassed so I'm relisting for further input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for anything other than Delete. Jeni fails to state a ground to retain beyond a personal attack on the nom.   Ravenswing  15:25, 20 October 2010 (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.