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.
Delete Fails any sort of notability guidelines. The page is also very clearly personally sourced; a clear message needs to be sent to people that we are serious to avoid this from happening more often. The page should only be reinstated if she qualifies for the W Series and does well in it.
Holdenman05 (
talk)
11:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply
They do not look like to be substantial. For the countries that haven't much racers, even amateur series driver is an achievement, so the local media are eager to cover it. But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so.
Corvus tristis (
talk)
09:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
'Comment, nominator states above "But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so.", since when does
WP:GNG require coverage to be by international media?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
14:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not sure about the reliability of the provided sources and that she has a 'significant coverage' in the sources. Also I have doubts that she satisfy "Presumed" criterion. So, the fact she passes
WP:GNG have not proven yet.
Corvus tristis (
talk)
17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep As
Largoplazo has noted, there are certainly enough sources which are suitable for meeting
WP:GNG. That is all that is required. The Nom seems to vary in how they consider the sources aren't adequate, sometimes saying they are not substantial (no, they're not books, but they are definitely not trivial), sometimes saying they are not reliable, sometimes that they don't add up to significant coverage ..... and then that they are not "international"! I do not find any of those comments convincing - this is a definite keep on
WP:GNG.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
09:19, 19 December 2018 (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.
Delete Fails any sort of notability guidelines. The page is also very clearly personally sourced; a clear message needs to be sent to people that we are serious to avoid this from happening more often. The page should only be reinstated if she qualifies for the W Series and does well in it.
Holdenman05 (
talk)
11:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)reply
They do not look like to be substantial. For the countries that haven't much racers, even amateur series driver is an achievement, so the local media are eager to cover it. But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so.
Corvus tristis (
talk)
09:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
'Comment, nominator states above "But does she notable for the international media? I don't think so.", since when does
WP:GNG require coverage to be by international media?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
14:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not sure about the reliability of the provided sources and that she has a 'significant coverage' in the sources. Also I have doubts that she satisfy "Presumed" criterion. So, the fact she passes
WP:GNG have not proven yet.
Corvus tristis (
talk)
17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep As
Largoplazo has noted, there are certainly enough sources which are suitable for meeting
WP:GNG. That is all that is required. The Nom seems to vary in how they consider the sources aren't adequate, sometimes saying they are not substantial (no, they're not books, but they are definitely not trivial), sometimes saying they are not reliable, sometimes that they don't add up to significant coverage ..... and then that they are not "international"! I do not find any of those comments convincing - this is a definite keep on
WP:GNG.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
09:19, 19 December 2018 (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.