Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 92S

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to March Engineering. There isn't a great consensus on what to do here but clearly this article isn't quite notable enough for a standalone article. I have therefore gone for the least destructuve outcome of a redirect as a temporary measure pending further discussion on what to do with the article. A list of cars is probably the best outcome but this is an editorial decision and I don't want to make an editorial decision here. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 92S

March 92S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, this is just one of hundreds of racing projects that never came to fruition for various reasons. Some cars that never actually raced have established notability, but this car never got beyond the very basic early design stages and nothing was really built. It's manufacturer went bankrupt, its aerodynamicists went bankrupt, the only knowledge of its existence is from an early presentation model and an aerodynamic mockup, and the fact that an engineer wrote an article on its aerodynamics. All we really have is WP:STATS and WP:CRUFT. The359 (Talk) 05:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You edited articles on my Watchlist. Am I not supposed to see what's been changed? I mean, how else would I find out you deleted an entire article and history without even going through the process of discussion...
Lack of resources is not the topic of discussion here. Notability is. Which is specifically element 1 and element 5 of WP:GNG. The additional source simply says the same thing the article already does, that a design was announced and then cancelled. The359 (Talk) 07:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More rubbish being spouted, and irrelevancies about a different topic that happened in a completely different timeframe (was your ego that pricked that this is the result?) It makes precisely fuck-all difference what exactly the source says about the car, and it has never been a requirement for the different sources in an article to be on completely different things - that's something you've made up, as usual. Equally, it does add something on top of what the article already has - a proposed sale price, for example. (Nice introduction of a factual inaccuracy on Lancia LC2, whilst stalking me, by the way - Abarth wouldn't have acquired a car it built and that had campaigned under a different branch of the same company, but don't let that stop you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does all that really matter when the subject very obviously fails notability? --Falcadore (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying it was a requirement that the sources say different things. I'm pointing out this new source adds nothing to establish notability. "Information exists" is not notability, as pointed out in WP:GNG, notability can be presumed but not guarenteed. There is no significant coverage, and really can there ever be for such a project? The359 (Talk) 07:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would normally suggest merge and redirect to March Engineering but can find no mention of the car anywhere in the March Engineering article, which underlines it's lack of notability. Fails GNG. Not just as failure as a car but a failure at everything it did, it never raced and nobody missed it. It absense was not even notable. There are SOOOO many much more notable March cars to write articles about, like Grand Prix and Indy 500 winners, why waste time on this one? --Falcadore (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't obviously fail GNG, as it is borderline at the very least. The fact I actually have some decent sources to write it with, and yet people still whine (standard). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "It absense was not even notably" is utterly meaningless. I'm not averse to a merge and redirect if that's what consensus says, but outright deletion only suits the nominator's overinflated ego. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's pleasing to see you aren't taking this personally. A redirect is used when there is something to redirect too. With no mention of the 92S at the March Engineering article there is no reason to redirect to it. --Falcadore (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Falcadore: The fact that it isn't mentioned in the article right now doesn't mean that it cannot be merged and mentioned there. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a good reason for doing so. We can't even really say the car exists/was built. --Falcadore (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the blanking and prod on the article space is of what use then? The359 (Talk) 08:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what G7 is meant for. The359 (Talk) 08:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:45, 21 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_92S&oldid=1138052325"