Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow Karts (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Karts[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Few gnews hits exist, and apparently only in the context of Arrow Karts displaying in a trade show. This does not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (The article is also tagged for COI, which I will note is NOT a reason for deletion.) Frank | talk 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - previous discussion was for a substantially different version of the article more than two years ago that consisted of a list of products with no refs; it was essentially a G11. I am not basing this nom on that previous one.

Delete. I declined the speedy deletion because there was an assertion of notability, but the article fails WP:CORP, there also seems a strong conflict of interest present. Lectonar (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit there are significant issues with the promotional tone of the article, but I think that when a corporation builds the karts for notable sports events and even build one that eventually wins, it's reasonable to have an article on the topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if so, such article(s) would appear in reliable sources - establishing notability - before an article would be appropriate here...right? Frank | talk 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the conflict of interest, the article still completely fails WP:CORP. Trusilver 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Trusilver. Templarion 善意 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello. Although I am new to relatively new to Wiki, I find it a bit strange that this article has so many tags for verification etc.. Yet some other brand go karts like Tony Kart claim even greater things than what the Arrow does and has no references what so ever except for the thier own website. It seems a bit like double standards. I will admit though it does need some tidy uup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.12 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 115.130.16.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - the need for WP:RS and WP:V outside of self referencing is an important issue - if there is a lack of the source material - it fails - if other arts have the same problem they need to go as well Satu Suro 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I found this quite helpful when I was doing some searching on karts. other brands seem to do exactly the same so if you delete this one, you should also delete the rest. When I phoned a local kart shop EG a real person they confirmed many of the points stated in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.108.81 (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 58.160.108.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - (Yes, other stuff exists that might need to be cleaned up or deleted. However, that is not relevent to what should be done here.) Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Simply not notable without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails WP:CORP by a clear margin Murtoa (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (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.