Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Autosports


 * 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. After a rewrite, there was no consensus to delete this article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

United Autosports

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Clear advertisement. Undeleted on WP:REFUND here because the content (both text and imagery) was released under a free license and the original deletion reason was for copyright violation. The comments on that undeletion request indicate that the wikipedia article is to serve as an extension of the corporate website. Additionally, this may fail WP:CORP, but I don't know for certain. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless completely re-written, NPOV is an issue, the opinions are abound with statements like "The team will seek to deliver immaculately prepared and executed racing programs in a variety of settings and styles" and "Mr. Hogan directly contributed to the development and professionalism of the modern motorsports industry". This subject may qualify for a Wikipedia however this article does not, I think editor which created this has conflict of interest here and may need to step back and ask for someone else (not attached to the group) to recreate it. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Delete The promotional portions and NPOV are definitely cleared up (thank you for that), now does it meet with Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I do not know much about autosports, but the article stills seems to lack the notability for inclusion be on the right track now.


 * Delete I am the one who restored the article, and I agree with the above comments. Theleftorium (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Article is no longer promotional. I have no opinion on the notability. Theleftorium (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep on the caveat that the article be re-written by someone OTHER than the creator to eliminate the non-neutral point of view. Additionally, here are links to coverage I've found - these could be included to establish notability. which the article in its current state doesn't -      Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do not delete this page again. It took a while to figure out what happened the first time, and I just got it reinstated. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article is simply a rewrite of the team's website. The author has been repeatedly warned against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.  The359  ( Talk ) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Notability established although article is nothing more than a stub at the moment. The359  ( Talk ) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (see below) - this sort of extended promotional stuff would be fine on the company's web-site (and indeed is largely a copy of it) but Wikipedia is not a promotional notice-board, it is an encyclopedia, which is quite a different thing and (since anyone can edit) it only maintains itself as an encyclopedia by having strong rules against editing with a conflict of interest. This sort of thing shows why we need them. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you're considering promotional material. This is information straight from the United Autosports web site, and we are not promotion events here. We are simply showing who United Autosports is, its team members, drivers and cars. There isn't anything promotional about it. Please, help me understand as I am very confused by the controversy here.Bgoodman0310 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion only comes because I don't think you have read or followed any of links which people have left on your talk page, which explain the current issues with the article you have copied from your website. Not to mention the numerous mentions of conflict of interest you hold by creating this article on Wikipedia. Here is some other readings which will hopefully help clear some of your confusion reliable sources, notability and because this may be an issue from comments made in the refund discussion ownership. I hope this helps - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously have read the links, I promise. It just doesn't make sense. I do not know what the "refund discussion" is. Is there content in my article about a "refund?" Bgoodman0310 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * REFUND is just short for "Requests for Undeletion", the page where you asked to have the article restored. The statements you made there are identical to the statements you made here.  You said that the article on wikipedia reflects your own corporate website: which is not at all what a wikipedia article should be. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - I'm taking no stand on the notability. The article is unabashedly promotional, and would require a ground up rewrite.  As such, it should be deleted as WP:SPAM. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - now that other editors have basically rewritten it from scratch, the promotional concerns are adressed and I'm satisfied that the sourcing is good enough to pass notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have spent a good portion of my day reading through the Conflict of Interest rules, and I have also rewritten the sections of the United Autosports wiki page so that it is less "promotional" and more encyclopedic. I hope this meets with everyone's approval Bgoodman0310 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. @Bgoodman0310, while you are welcome to offer comments to the discussion, editors have just one opportunity to make a bold recommendation on the outcome of the discussion. Cindamuse (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note I have changed the wording accordingly. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is promotional in nature and really not appropriate for Wikipedia. Allow me to explain. Sometimes there is a bit of confusion over the use of the term "promotional". There is a much broader scope than simply that which covers the sale and/or advertisement of products and services. One way to better understand the term as it relates to assessing articles is to determine the purpose or motive of including the article on Wikipedia. Some people say, "But I'm not selling anything!" Other terms that define "promotional" include "advocate", "present", "announce", "advance", "introduce", "make known", "publicize", "bring about", "plug", and "facilitate". I think it's safe to say that all these words typify both the term "promotional", as well as the content of the article. So, again, it's really not appropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - still promotional, still no credible assertion of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I believe I can show notability as the United Autosports drivers and organization have had many articles written about them. Would that help show notability, and if so, do I show those as Resources at the end of my article?  Thank you for your help. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * reply - no, that would fall under the "notability is not inherited" principle. Not every project in which a notable person is involved, is thereby made notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I cleaned up the article a little and used two notable sources that Whose Your Guy had found. Please review changes and modify delete/keep votes accordingly.--v/r - TP 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is all my content and images? TParis00ap said they cleaned up the article 'a little', but ALL of my content and images are now GONE. This is not acceptable. I noted MANY notable sources. Am I not seeing the revisions correctly? Remember, we're not all pros like the Wiki administrators. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not WP:OWN the article, therefore there's no requirement for your work to remain. Your work was highly promotional and biased and served no encyclopedic use and therefore was removed in order to save the article from being deleted.  Had we kept your work, the article almost certainly would have been deleted.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. I made major strides to make the article unbiased and nonpromotional. It was simply an encyclopedic view of what United Autosports is as a racing team and the ownership of such team. It is very similar to that of Penske's wikipedia page. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree you may, but the article was still heavily biased, promotional, and not encyclopedic. Changing a few buzzwords was not the fix to the problem.   The359  ( Talk ) 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with user:The359, prior to the rewrite, the article was still promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bgoodman0310, Wikipedia is not a place for original research and works. The article I wrote was not in my own words.  In this version, each statement is supported by a verifiable source to support it.  There are also notable sources now that support the notability of the subject of the article.  In this form, the article may meet guidelines for keep.  If you wish to add to the article, use third party content and inline citations.  Sometimes we cannot see how our own interests influence the things we do.  Even trying your best to stay nuetral may not appear as nuetral to others.  Thanks.--v/r - TP 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article as revised by TParis00ap - brilliant rescue job. It may need to be watched to see it does not get re-spammed. Bgoodman300, nobody owns a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not anyone connected with its subject. If you want an article that you can control, you need Myspace or a site like that, not Wikipedia. Your website is the place for all your pictures and detail, and anyone who wants to see them can get to your website in one click. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. When will the "delete" message be removed from the top of the article?  Thanks. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion runs for seven days; soon after that, an uninvolved administrator will decide what the consensus of the debate is, and take whatever action is required. If the article is kept, the template at the top will be removed at that point. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Bgoodman0310 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 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.