Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedbank kartodroms

: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. WPSNOW MBisanz talk 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Swedbank kartodroms]]=

:{{la|Swedbank kartodroms}} ([{{fullurl:Swedbank kartodroms|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedbank kartodroms}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Initially prodded but removed by author. This is a non notable track much like hundreds around the world. Fails WP:ORG Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Withdraw I am persuaded by the points below and I have no wish to either waste anyone's time or be biased against "obscure" subjects in Eastern Europe written by newly registered Wikipedian with very few edits. I therefore withdraw this AfD. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to object that Swedbank kartodroms is non notable karting track. First, it is the most modern and recent race track in Baltic states that hosts Baltic level international karting competition, second, you can found articles about the track on international media, for example Vroom (11/2008), Karting Magazine (10/2008). The track is notable in eastern Europe, Baltics and Scandinavia. How can I still proove that it is notable, and what really makes karting track notable. Thank you for understanding!Ugaldins (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:Keep This is the national track with a history as well. Unfortunately, this AfD is typical for the "notability trend" against "obscure" subjects in Eastern Europe written by newly registered Wikipedian with very few edits. This article is worthwhile, even though it needs some rewrite. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:Keep, give a chance to improve. Paste: According to your logic, Old Trafford is a non notable venue much like hundreds around the world. It is, after all, just a stadium, and by far not a large one. And it also fails WP:ORG because it's not an independent organization at all (WP:ORG is irrelevant for buildings, tracks, ships and other material artefacts). Ugaldins: Notability should be proven with WP:Reliable sources, ideally, in English. The difference between S.K. and Old Trafford is in the amount of third-party references. A new track in Latvia may not have as many as an old stadium in a small English town, but it's worth trying. NVO (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.