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. There is a disagreement on whether to keep or redirect, but as far as rationales that directly address the issue of notability and sourcing (rather than cleanup-related issues like the unsourced portions or fancruft) there appears to be a general consensus that the sourcing is sufficient to show notability.
Aoidh (
talk)
15:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep References 5 and 8 appear sufficient to meet GNG, although the former needs to be located in archive. The sheer number of cultural references should be a clue that this is too iconic an element to be redirected or merged anywhere.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The cultural references are pretty minor and unsourced; 5 and 8 don't seem to indicate cultural significance (they are more about the movie and the car they made for it than anything)
38.75.235.237 (
talk)
15:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-sequitur. Fictional elements are almost always talked about "in the context of the franchise" but doing so non-trivially by independent RS'es establishes notability. Also note for the record that this IP address is the one for whom this nomination was originally opened, so should be understood to not be a separate individual than the nominator.
Jclemens (
talk)
17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not going to !vote on this AfD, as I have a decades-old-and-thus-now-minor
WP:COI with regard to the Speed Racer franchise. However, I thought I should note that there has been at least one publication focused on the Mach 5. The Speed Racer Special, published in 1988, had a car-focused comics story followed by 10 pages of history and technical specs about the Mach 5. I don't know if this moves the needle for anyone's consideration. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect Per
WP:TNT, with no objection to recreation if the article can be improved with sources, or during this discussion per
WP:HEY. Right now it is completely unsalvageable.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Speed Racer#The Mach 5 - The current article needs a complete rewriting, and even then, I am not convinced that the car is notable enough on its own that a separate article from the series main article would even make sense. The sources both in the article and presented here are not great - even the ones being noted as being the best ones here are simply on the fact that real life props/replicas of the car have been made, rather than any kind of genuine analysis or reception of the actual fictional car the article is about.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Jclemens's sources and the "In popular culture" section. It does need more reception and more sources but AFD is not cleanup. I also agree that "The "real" Mach Five" would not exist if the fictional Mach Five was not notable.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk)
07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. Opinion and arguments are split right down the middle on whether or not sources are sufficient to establish notability. Let's see if another week can tip the scales between Keep and Redirect. Thanks to those participants who took the effort to go looking for additional sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets
WP:GNG with 2 sources noted by JClemens and the 2 newspapers.com clippings by Nat Gertler. Current article doesn't require TNT and can serve as a basis for an improved article. —
siroχo22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Speed Racer#The Mach 5. Fails GNG, Nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS found in article or above. If SIGCOV sources are ever found, it would take WP:TNT to create a proper article, as written this is just WP:OR fancruft. //
Timothy ::
talk00:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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. There is a disagreement on whether to keep or redirect, but as far as rationales that directly address the issue of notability and sourcing (rather than cleanup-related issues like the unsourced portions or fancruft) there appears to be a general consensus that the sourcing is sufficient to show notability.
Aoidh (
talk)
15:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep References 5 and 8 appear sufficient to meet GNG, although the former needs to be located in archive. The sheer number of cultural references should be a clue that this is too iconic an element to be redirected or merged anywhere.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The cultural references are pretty minor and unsourced; 5 and 8 don't seem to indicate cultural significance (they are more about the movie and the car they made for it than anything)
38.75.235.237 (
talk)
15:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-sequitur. Fictional elements are almost always talked about "in the context of the franchise" but doing so non-trivially by independent RS'es establishes notability. Also note for the record that this IP address is the one for whom this nomination was originally opened, so should be understood to not be a separate individual than the nominator.
Jclemens (
talk)
17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not going to !vote on this AfD, as I have a decades-old-and-thus-now-minor
WP:COI with regard to the Speed Racer franchise. However, I thought I should note that there has been at least one publication focused on the Mach 5. The Speed Racer Special, published in 1988, had a car-focused comics story followed by 10 pages of history and technical specs about the Mach 5. I don't know if this moves the needle for anyone's consideration. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect Per
WP:TNT, with no objection to recreation if the article can be improved with sources, or during this discussion per
WP:HEY. Right now it is completely unsalvageable.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Speed Racer#The Mach 5 - The current article needs a complete rewriting, and even then, I am not convinced that the car is notable enough on its own that a separate article from the series main article would even make sense. The sources both in the article and presented here are not great - even the ones being noted as being the best ones here are simply on the fact that real life props/replicas of the car have been made, rather than any kind of genuine analysis or reception of the actual fictional car the article is about.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Jclemens's sources and the "In popular culture" section. It does need more reception and more sources but AFD is not cleanup. I also agree that "The "real" Mach Five" would not exist if the fictional Mach Five was not notable.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk)
07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. Opinion and arguments are split right down the middle on whether or not sources are sufficient to establish notability. Let's see if another week can tip the scales between Keep and Redirect. Thanks to those participants who took the effort to go looking for additional sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets
WP:GNG with 2 sources noted by JClemens and the 2 newspapers.com clippings by Nat Gertler. Current article doesn't require TNT and can serve as a basis for an improved article. —
siroχo22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Speed Racer#The Mach 5. Fails GNG, Nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS found in article or above. If SIGCOV sources are ever found, it would take WP:TNT to create a proper article, as written this is just WP:OR fancruft. //
Timothy ::
talk00:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
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.