Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey to Le Mans

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 (non-admin closure). Although I am dubious of some of the sources provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt, there are certainly a few independent reviews from reputable sources, which is enough for WP:NFILM, so following his advice I am withdrawing my nomination with apologies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Le Mans

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails GNG. The only sources appear to be one advertizement, one actual review from The Guardian, and one link to a trailer with almost no accompanying text. Creator is a paid editor. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Telegraph review is long enough and in a major publication. There is also the Bournmouth Echo, Sportscar Racing News and Luxurious Magazine, for example. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets GNG. There are three refs not one. Article could also be expanded on with info from some of the EL's. Accusations of paid editing (which BTW does not preclude an article from existing) require proof or they should be withdrawn. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: If you look at the references you will see that the first and third are, respectively, an ad and a trailer as stated in my AfD nomination. The article creator admitted to being a paid editor on this and many other articles after being repeatedly threatened with a ban. See here: [1]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at the link you provided says anything about a ban and, once again, articles written by a paid editor is not a reason for deletion. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: [2], [3]. And of course it's not a reason for deletion, but it's relevant to know. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic I know, but I don't recall the author being threatened with a ban. They openly disclosed their position when asked to do so but, as always on Wikipedia, this led to their articles (some good some bad) being attacked from all directions. Sionk (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Keep and close. WP:NF is met per more-then-trivial coverage in multiple sources.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Three of which were sourcing the article when erringly brought to AFD. Sorry Sammy1339, well meant as it may have been, WP:BEFORE shows this to be a very bad nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 5 March 2015 (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.