Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowrah Kart Club

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowrah Kart Club

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

Delete. Self-documented. No outside publication stating notability. Appears to be WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the hell does WP:PR have to do with this? It certainly isn't spam. I strongly feel that this nominator, mass nominating articles, should actually read the guidelines he quotes, then it'd stop wasting our time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think that nom's AfD should be discarded on the ground that he's mass nominated a number of kart-related articles (the majority of which have been deleted) than Jeni's opposition should be discounted because she seems unusually interested in defending such articles. That being said, there are only a handful of hits on Google UK, and zero hits on Google News UK. This is startling; you'd think that any legitimate sporting track would at least get trivial mention in the sports pages, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly fails of notability, and a complete lack of reliable sources dooms it. Ravenswing 15:11, 14 October 2010 (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.