Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckeye Bulldog

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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus here over whether this merits an article or not based on the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckeye Bulldog[edit]

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

NN tractor. Do we have a notability requirement for farm equipment? there had been a prod from another editor on the article, denied by the creator.-- Syrthiss (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:IAR, doesn't assert notability for the tractor. Then take a ride on my Big Green Tractor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it's because I live in redneck country, but "tractor pulls" are popular arena entertainment. Although I've never been to one of these events, I've known many a person who paid to watch the competition and see their favorite trucks and drivers. It's no less of a professional sport than drag racing or automobile racing. The website [1] confirms the article's claim that the "Buckeye Bulldog" is at the top of its super-semi competition. To me, this easily passes the low threshhold of notability that Wikipedia confers upon sports. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a multi-million dollar Mack Semi is a piece of farm equipment, but nonetheless, this is a professional sport and this specific team has been competing since 1984, and the owner, who I am not merely looking up on the internet, but am related to, was one of the first people in the world to create of of these monsters. I included the team's website so that if nothing else, it can be verified that this truck does exist in a real sport. I suppose if there isn't a chance to make this page worthy of Wikipedia delete users, then there ain't no reason to be workin' on it then, huh? Oh, and cheers.--Benjamin.bachna (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with that. Speaking of farm equipment, I've heard that people enjoy watching horses run around an oval. Can you imagine? Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be a professional sport and it may be good at it, but I dont see anything that makes this notable. Q ^{T C} 06:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes the article in question not notable while this one is? Notice Sec. 3.6 --Benjamin.bachna (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your argument is invalid, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We are discussing the merits of this article. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid objection. Shouldn't the same rules apply to "tractor pulls" that apply to other motor sports? Or, for that matter, other competitions that are big enough to play sports arenas? I agree with you that most of the sports articles on here are "other crap", but until the threshold is raised on sports, its more of a matter of equal application of the rules, not of othercrapexists. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the same rules should apply to all sports. This sport does not get the reliable source coverage that other sports receive. The lack of coverage in reliable sources means a lack of coverage in wikipedia as notability can not be established without coverage. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Template:Infobox Buckeye Bulldog and Template:Infobox Buckeyebulldog due to the apparent lack of multiple independent reliable sources about the subject and conflict of interest concerns. Adambro (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is this, this, mention in this, won class in this event, and 2009 points champ. I think there is enough to keep it. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The default criterion is something about citable sources that document significant and more than local coverage. But, there are catagories that have inherent notabiliy. I think licensed local radio stations and there may be some for athletes too. An encyclopedia is supposed to make the obscure accessible to the ignorant masses without being advertising. I'd look for inherent notability in various catagoies or athlete. Driving a tractor in a sporting event should qualify for "athlete" status especially if the regulating body has any national significance ( like NFL or MLB etc FWIW). LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and of course the tractor itself should be inherently notable for "Winning" in such a competition as any other Gold medal winner. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:26, 31 October 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.