Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC

Add links
From 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 delete. Evaluating this discussion was somewhat difficult. However, after discounting the large number of SPAs and apparent sockpuppets, there was a clear consensus to delete. Blueboy96 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASIOC

A large portion of these !votes for keeping this article have generated from a post on the NASIOC forums, thread located here, in which Wikipedian editors, among other things, are called douchebags for nominating this article. Just an FYI Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASIOC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have attempted to previously place this as a PROD, but the article creator user:RCIM wanted to dispute this, stating that a internet forum dressed as a car club is notable because 1) it has been in existence since 1999, 2) 140,000 members, these of which wouldn't have to pay a penny to join, 3) it boasts of being the largest, for a national club, it will be. All in all I can't see why is this organization being anywhere notable. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced to show significance. Claims of "this number is large" count for nothing at all. We can only have an encyclopedia article on this topic if sufficient sources have covered it. The article contains no useful sources at all, right now. Friday (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No demonstration of significance and I'd be surprised if any could be found. Currently fails WP:ORG guidelines, and is really just a puff-piece. --DeLarge (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NASIOC.com is currently listed as the 38th largest message board in existence at www.big-boards.com. The membership exceeds 166,550, as indicated on big-boards.com. It is extremely significant as the largest North American Subaru Club. Agree that the article needs some work, but the existence of the article is not trivial. Cardomain article featuring NASIOC.com: http://www.cardomain.com/features/nasioc STiSquirrel (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— STiSquirrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. What is the debate here? Are we arguing that NASIOC.com isn't notable or that it isn't a club? I assure you its more than just an internet forum. There are "club" meets all over the country. The locals around Detroit have been meeting weekly since October of 2002, and most have been into the brand before the forum existed. We talk about cars and help wrench on each others' cars. We go on "fun drives" as a group. We invade local autocrosses as a group. We go to dinner, go-kart racing, BBQ in my back yard, wakeboarding, skiing, etc...AS A GROUP. We know each other and keep in contact through the forums on NASIOC.com. As for notable...if notable means that you charge your members money to belong, then I guess we probably don't care to be notable. Why is money a requirement to have a club? Did you charge money in elementary school when you had your little club and hung out in the tree house? The article needs a lot of work. There is no arguement there. Don't delete it because you refuse to accept that an internet forum is a good, efficient way for a club and its members to keep in contact and plan daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly events. Scooby921 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— Scooby921 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I'm sure this is what any clubs do, does that make your club anything special from other clubs, NO. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NASIOC.com not only has a relationship with Subaru of America, but has also had NASIOC events featured in the Subaru of America magazine DRIVE amongst others. It seems odd that without actually doing any research, people would claim it fails to meet the WP:ORG guidelines. Next time please make at least a modest effort before denigrating an organization, it will allow people to take you seriously instead of thinking you lazy and biased. That NASIOC is compared to Porsche Club in a negative way clearly shows not just a bias towards more popular and more "upscale" type clientele, but also shows a complete lack of understanding of what NASIOC does. Such elitist behavior is against what Wiki is supposed to be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomhaur04 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC) — Boomhaur04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    What a big piece of BS you are talking. I'm not at all comparing this to the Porsche Club of America, one of the reason for nomination is the historical sense these clubs have which the nominated club is just too recent,
    These clubs I referred to is historically significant club who has its own article here, the other clubs as such are AMOC, also is Crosley Car Owners Club considered upscale, are the Mid Night Club considered upscale. As for being recognized by Subaru, Did all it take was an e-mail to their PR department to be recognize, I'm sure that is what any clubs can do. Well this clubs does what all other clubs does and does that make them historically significant? NO
    As for anything to do with the Porsche Club of America, I'm not even a member of them, plus I drive a Silvia S15 with a GP Sport bodykit which wouldn't qualify for a membership with them. So you can shove that "upscale" type clientele thing up your ass. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "historically significant" What makes this Porsche Club historically significant? From the beginning this AfD has had a very biased and very immature tone to it. Moosato Cowbata I do not understand half of what you are typing. Your grammar is worse than my 10 year old sons. It seems to me that NASIOC has sourced itself very well. And now there's a conflict of interest tag on it? The irony is the real conflict of interest is presented by Moosato. I found out about NASIOC looking for information on Subarus, the first thing that I found was the Car and driver article, hardly insignificant. Consider that because of the inclusive and open nature of NASIOC, anyone the club has had any significance for, has also joined in to participate and share their Subaru experiences and technical knowledge with the community and the world, and Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent Company of Subaru, so therefore, many of those who would be here to defend the Wiki entry are going to be members of the club. AS for your comment about emailing the Subaru PR dept. for recognition, whether or not that is the case, you do realize that is how the Associated Press finds out about important events? Just FYI..Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: "So you can shove that "upscale" type clientele thing up your ass" What a fine example of an unbiased moderator. The problem with Wikis is, someone has to be given power to moderate it. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. This person obviously has a personal problem with NASIOC and is using Wikipedia as a forum to express his or her dislike. Did he or she get beat by a Subaru in a legal or illegal automobile competition? Did he or she go to NASIOC and get berated for posting a street racing story? Who knows?

The point is, when deciding to delete or keep an article, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to delete, not keep, and this should be a HEAVY burden. Drive space is cheap. Making Wikipedia more inclusive is better - if some "unnecessary" articles are there, so what? It's not like a paper encyclopedia that will get physically larger with more entries. The search feature will allow someone to find what they are looking for - no one has to "turn pages" past the NASIOC entry to get to what they want.

The level of emotion and the perseverance that a handful of people have toward pushing through this deletion speaks volumes. Why are they so concerned? No one doing a routine "clean up" would be so determined to delete an entry. There's more to this story. We'll probably never know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk)

  • Going to Qcanfixit's comment, what I mean are that these clubs that I referred to have been going for a long time and this one has just being in existence since 1999, plus nobody wanted to own an Impressor at that time because any 240SX could thrash them at the traffic lights easily, well back then there was hardly any parts for these 2.5 RS. Also like many of these clubs who have articles here, does it organize its own racing series, I don't mean some drag racing series, I mean any 20 car at a time on the circuit series, I'm sure your organization don't have its own racing series. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entry proves that Moosato Cowabata is merely a Nissan fanboi who wants to delete this entry for personal reasons only. He started this because he doesn't like "impressors" (whatever those are) and doesn't like the Subaru IMPREZA owner's club. Speculation exists that this person had a confrontation with NASIOC members. While this may never be known, it is VERY CLEAR that this whole deletion was started as a personal vendetta, which is against the spirit and letter of Wikipedia rules. Does Wikipedia enforce their most important rules, or is everyone only concerned about pedantic discussions about "relevance" or "reference quality"? There should be action taken against this person for using Wikipdeia for his or her own personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL Don't make me laugh, I have never been a member of your stupid club, I have never had a confrontation with anybody in that club, the only club members I have met are are those here who nominated keep on this vote because somebody informed it on your forum therefore you all just turn up and vote keep. Well you all do what car fanbois do, like what one editor said, I could even compare you all to the soccer hooligans, well its my soccer team lost, lets not grieve, lets stage a riot. Plus I never disliked IMPREZA at all, plus what is wrong with stating my preference to Lancer Evos, you just do what all fanbois do and accuse me of having a grudge against this club which is a biggest piece of nonsence I know of.
  • LOL Then why did you pull this one car club article out of the blue and nominate it for deletion? The PCA has NO references at all, yet you didn't nominate it. You make several statements demonstrating a personal dislike of NASIOC and Impreza owners, now you claim you have no such anti Impreza bias? Do you expect us to believe that? I have never vanalized any page on Wikipedia, and I don't advocate or condone doing so. I am merly pointing out that anyone looking to simply clean up Wilipedia wouldn't be so driven to delete the NASIOC page. What's wrong with you demonstrating your preferences against Impreza's? This is a discussion about the NASIOC page, not which cars you like or dislike. Bringing up your preferences gives the impression that your deletion request is personal in nature. As someone said below, none of us have said that the page needs to stay because the Impreza is a great car - yet you strongly implied that it should be deleted because you like other cars better. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, but your nomination for deletion is NOT written from a neutral, objective point of view, especially when you have made so many negative comments about us and the car itself and few about the article. Don't accuse us of being rabid fanbois while you yourself make comments which indicate that you are a rabid anti-fanboi. As I said before, what's the harm in leaving it? I honestly believe that there are some rabid wikipedia folks that simply don't like any article that they or the group of "core members" didn't write. The point was made that The PCA article and others have no references. Someone suggested "delete them all," I suggest "keep them all" and stop this debate. The cost of keeping the article is low. Err on the side of INCLUSION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.239.24 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) — 76.97.239.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I was tempted to nominate it but maybe you should have a go doing so, not to mention that this is not the only club I and all others have nomninated, well you can check it up anywhere. I have neve stated here that I got anything against the club or the car itself, you all just come here and do your fanboi thing and accuse me of it. Do you really needed to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia, not a promotion site, well always.
  • Comment: Yet the Porsche Club offers no sources to prove this information you are presenting. Furthermore, you are correct, when the site started Subaru had a very small footprint in the motor enthusiast community, and I credit NASIOC for building up the name of Subaru by establishing a community for people who drive or rally or race these cars to share mechanical information and sources for parts. Today is very different for Subaru in America thanks largely to NASIOC. And that Mr Cowabata is very significant and note worthy. Thank you for proving my point.Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

  • Thank you for proving my point, well thank your friend for proving his point, don't thank me for something I didn't say. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Guys, you might as well stop recruiting people from your club to come in here and say "keep this". This is not a vote. Unless reliable sources have covered this club in a nontrivial way, it's probably going to get deleted. Your best bet for saving the article is to try to source it. Friday (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would Subaru of America's own DRIVE magazine be considered reliable? http://www.subarudrive.com/02_01_spring/NewEnglandImprezaClub.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomhaur04 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) — Boomhaur04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It's enough to satisfy me that this club exists. However we still know very little about the club. Maybe there could be a "fandom" section in the Subaru article or something? This might warrant a brief mention there. Friday (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just an advertisement for any old car clubs, every publications coming from manufacturers will always have some sections about car clubs, does this make your club aything special from other clubs, NO. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: any clubs will have their own periodicals, does that make them special . Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It just isn't worth it to argue with you. You are slowly contradicting yourself, but you'll argue your point until everyone gets tired of listening to the village idiot and lets you win. Go ahead, have the entry deleted. Someone will start a new one the next day. Not only is NASIOC far different from your belief, but we're persistent bastards as well! Scooby921 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it because it is free, it is because it was the first club to deal with Impressors, I would join if I had a Impressor, but I think Lancer Evos are way better. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment* More proof that this Moosato Cowabata started this deletion because he or she doesn't like "Impressors," (whatever those are) and wants the entry for the North American Suabaru IMPREZA Owners CLub deleted. The "top" Wikipedia rules all state that Wikipedia is not to be abused in this manner. Why is this person allowed to do this? If I deleted the "Ford" article because my engine blew up, I'd be warned and possibly banned. No one will answer the question: Does Wikipedia enforce their most important rules, or is everyone only concerned about pedantic discussions about "relevance" or "reference quality"? I think Wikipdeia needs to move away from this cliquey, picky, "lets find a reason to delete THAT" mentality and be more inclusive. Again, what is the harm in allowing this article and others like to to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's you who are accusing me of disliking Subarus and all this BS what all car fanbois do (they all go and accuse people of disliking a particular car for any reason). That nickname "Impressor" came from a friend who used to one. It came from that he never bother to pronounce it properly, he always call his car "Impressor" and insists we all call it that. Personally, there is nothing wrong with it staying but I don't think that this is any special from any others for it to be here with additionally that you all just do this fanboy thing, rally around and make stupid claims that this club is somewhat notable, using some lameass reason if you can like all fanboi editors do. Not to mention that you have done the most honorable thing and vandalized the PCA article, well if you have the guts, why don't you nominate that for AfD if you don't think that club is any special from all others. Also me mentioning Lancer Evos just got you throwing your toys out of your prams didn't it. I said there is nothing wrong with Imprezas, its just that I prefer Lancer Evos, not to mention that I wouldn't swop it for my Silvia. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:As a group we understand that the page does not exactly follow the guidelines but now we have been given two guidelines first the WP:ORG guidelines and second web notability guidelines. How are we expected to update the entry to follow the guidelines if the community does not give us clear information on what guidelines to follow. As you can see we have already been working on editing the page in order to conform to the guidelines but it makes it difficult when we do not have clear guidelines to follow. Again to reiterate what has been said before, NASIOC serves more than just its members. It serves the entire Subaru community as a whole, it participates in philanthropic charities to the degree of thousands of dollars and has been published in many articles.Cavafox (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)— Cavafox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: It should be noted also that when one puts the search term "Subaru" into Google, NASIOC does appear on the first page of results.Manarius 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Manarius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep References meet WP:N in my opinion. Not a lot of blogs get mainstream press, but this one has (though fairly minor, but more than "in passing") Hobit (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Agree with Hobit that this meets WP:N, and it appears that the article has been updated recently to add references to meet guidelines. Not sure why this is AfD. Beethoven05 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On those references.. I just quickly looked at a couple of them, and saw no evidence that they mentioned this club at all. Friday (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please list the References that don't mention NASIOC? Thanks. FreakBurrito (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Florida Department of State" verifies that the organization was incorporated. This does not establish notability.
  2. "Big-boards.com" supports claim of notability by showing the site to be the fourth largest English language cars forum/message board. Nevertheless it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB or WP:ORG, and none of the three sites which are larger than NASIOC have a WP entry.
  3. "Car and Driver" is an Impreza review. Can't see any mention of NASIOC.
  4. "Road and Track" As "Car & Driver" above.
  5. "CarDomain" a single paragraph blurb about the club on a quasi-social networking site (think Facebook/MySpace, but with cars) which doesn't even have a WP entry of its own. Not nearly sufficient by itself to establish notability.
  6. "Drive Magazine, Version 3.2" supports claim of notability but is associated with the subject. In a magazine published by Subaru, an article about a club based around ownership of Subaru products. Therefore falls short as a reliable source.
  7. "48 Hours of Tri-State" Primary source. merely verifies that the 48H exists, does not demonstrate notability.
  8. "Colin McRae Official Website" The official site of a person mentioned in the article. Does nothing for notability. Not even sure what it's there for, to be honest; the wikilink to Colin McRae is all that's needed.
  9. "MarkAndRoger.com" As "Colin McRae" above.
  10. "Lovell/Freeman Memorial Decals". A forum post from the NASIOC website? The worst of the lot as far as violating citation guidelines go. Don't use primary sources, don't use message boards, etc etc.
  11. "CanadianDriver.com" Another Impreza review. Mentions three websites in passing at the end of the article as online resources, one of which is NASIOC. Article is not about NASIOC, which is what the notability criteria demands.
  12. "Drive Magazine, Spring 2002" Same as before, a magazine published by Subaru doing articles about Subaru owners' clubs is not independent.
  13. "CarDomain, NASIOC Interview" As before, CarDomain is as reliable as source as FaceBook or MySpace.
If you really stretched the bounds of notability as far as you possibly could, I'd say #2 & #11 would be OK to emphasize notability, but only if you had established it in the first place with a proper source. Meeting WP:V better, but not WP:NOTE, so not changing my "delete" despite the article expansion. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the claim that the second CarDomain source isn't reliable. It's not some random member that made a post on the site. The owners of the site made that particular page to feature NASIOC. That establishes NASIOC as being notable in the car enthusiast community in regards to Subarus. FreakBurrito (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say some of the above arguments are a bit extreme. First of all, discarding a publication because that publication covers a topic related to the article seems odd. Do we discount a movie review site when dealing with movies? That Subaru (a significant company) feels that NASIOC is worth a mention (and an article) says something. Those articles, IMO, establish notability. The fact that CanadianDriver wrote a paragraph about the car group also adds to notability. That other groups listed on Big-boards.com don't have an article is irrelevant and goes back to OTHERTHINGSDONTEXIST. The point is this group is quite large. That NASIOC had a successful fundraiser for a non-profit also provides a hint of notability (and that the fundraiser was covered in a local publication). Hobit (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)— Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: Although I question Mr Cow's claims of significance and the amount of passion that is going on here, maybe we car enthusiasts are a passionate lot. Heading straight into my nomination, as I have assessing the article, there are still some issues with this article, post nomination edit wise, it still has this promotional tome to it which needs trimming. Once this is trimmed, there are very little to be worth saving. In short, this article is written to look like a promotional site. There are people who needs to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia, not another website and I see this club as having so much in common with other clubs, as in members' benefit, it has a magazine, outing, its own shows and a lot which my old club also has. Willirennen (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between promote and inform? Could you please provide some examples of this "promotional tone"? or perhaps WP:BOLD and remove them yourselves so we can include them in a tone that is informative and not promotional? Thanks! FreakBurrito (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can see the amount of passion going on, these car fanboy types are just like English football hooligans, they always argue why their car and anything about their club is better than anything else (judgmental comments optional), well I used to be one of them until I got married. Also neither of the keep and delete party are capable of having some peace over this nominations including the nominator, Mr Cow. Not to mention that if either of you lose this argument, you all will probably start a riot on the internet like they do in outside football stadiums. Going to my nominations, personally I can't see what is so special about this club from all others including that of mine, so in that case why not just have this article deleted, but also all others including Porsche Club of America, that will keep the peace. Garth Bader (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just don't understand the mentality of "look for a reason to exclude." Why not KEEP this entry as well as the Porsche Club of America entry? How is Wikipedia harmed by inclusion? Wikipedia is supposed to be about allowing everyone to contribute, but I find that there is a core group of die hard "wikipedians" who will not tolerate articles they don't like, or edits to "their" articles. These "core people" seem to spend all of their wakign hours on wikipedia, deleting edits and articles that they don't like. To repeat myself, there should be a heavy burden of proof required to DELETE, not KEEP. Wikipedia should err on the side of INCLUSION. This deletion was started for personal reasons from someone with an axe to grind. The request to delete is thus invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I won't bother saying 'delete' or 'keep' since it doesn't seem to matter to those in control, but I will offer this point of view. I find it very odd NASIOC is being penalized because they have an active forum. It is definitely a club, as their countless organized get-togethers over the last 9 years have demonstrated. Beyond just being "a" club, it is the largest Subaru-centric club in the world. I believe that makes it notable to a very large number of people; but I can see why somebody who does not own a subaru would have no interest in it. Likewise, I have no interest in many of the great entries on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Further, there has been mention of the club not being around long enough - but I ask, how would it even make sense for the club to have existed before the Impreza existed in North America? Nobody defending NASIOC here in the Articles has used the argument "Impreza is a good car therefore. . ." and yet I see people casting delete votes and citing that as one of the reasons. In closing, I just think it's a bit twisted that an ONLINE encyclopedia would have anything against a club that chooses to distribute and communicate via the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhluhr (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be just a car club for people who own a particular flavor of car, so logically, any such person can join. Lara Dalle (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC) This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone can just as easily own a Porsche and pay that group some fee, and they can just as easily join that club. How hard or how easy it is to join should not be the issue. how easy is it to make changes to a Wiki entry? And if you want to talk about notability, NASIOC has been around longer than Wikipedia. Why the discrimination? Because we are not snobs? I find that insulting, distasteful and completely out of line with the Wiki Policies. As I mentioned above, it is the inclusive nature of NASIOC that defines it. It made Subaru accessible. Before NASIOC Subaru was just another import with very few fans who didn't even know of each others existence. Now it's a car with a cult following. Subaru has been in America 30 years, offering AWD and now only now, is AWD being looked at as a preformance component in American rallying, and performance circles because of the information NASIOC makes available. Furthermore, I who previously had no mechanical inclinations, was able to make several small upgrades and repairs to my own Subaru, with information that was only available on NASIOC and was invited into the community with open arms and given sound advice and step by step instructions which completely removed the fear of tinkering around with my car. Qcanfixit (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)— Qcanfixit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic (going back to 2005 Hobit (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC))— Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think the biggest misconception here is the fact that it it *NOT* merely an advertisement for a car club. The article is just some facts about an internet automotive community large enough to be of some note. It's obviously of some importance if the manufacturer chooses to have direct contact with the members. Speaking of members, the membership base grows at a fairly good clip which I think proves its notability since NASIOC does not blatantly look for PR or advertisement opportunities. I also have to question the motives of the member who brought it to scrutiny, since he seems to have a conflict of interest, and a some of the people calling for deletion also seem to have more than a passing interest in Mitsubishis.Upnygimp (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)— Upnygimp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I'm sure being the US and being a non-fee paying club, you sure will attract 250,000 members 10 years after you have started and how any members have left, well none because numbers are important in a forum. ell have i seen a forum member left their membership, they say they will but no. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm admiring the fact that there is a lot of WP:SPA here and is that going to have this article kept, well I don't think so, you all needed to be reminded of WP:SOCK as this is what I am noticing. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well how about this, with the changes made what of your concerns have we successfully fullfilled, and what have we fallen short of. Now I would like specificly what is left to do so we can fix it. We are concerned with making this right and not getting into a shouting match with anyone. If you could give us examples of other Clubs that are done properly that would be helpful because I went to a couple of car clubs were there are little or no citations to say they are valid.--Rcrookes (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Rcrookes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment:I would also like to add, someone whose job is to moderate, attacking and the use of sarcasm is unprofessional. No matter what is said about you or the argument that is proposed, a professional demeanor is a must. Speak clearly and without hidden agendas so that we can work this out, because your last comment is filled with passive aggressive language and sarcasm, which will only increases the negative responses. No one like to be demeaned. I believe you are here to make sure we follow the rules and to Help us to follow them.--Rcrookes (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)— Rcrookes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I am but I can't still see what is so special about this club. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A production of NASIOC, PRoN is distributed by a separate, online source. ITunes and according to :WP:WEB if The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; then we are notable. i think itunes is independent and respected. --Rcrookes (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Rcrookes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • umm Keep?? Why is this even listed?? There is no viable reason for deletion. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I don't see this club as anything special from all others. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources indicating notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: actually, new source indicated notability. The one directly above your call for deletion. it is reference number 5 --Rcrookes

(talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should look at DeLarge's reply, not valid. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other aspects aside, appears now to have independent references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of SPA votes is not going to meke me reverse my nomination, nor claiming your club to have a podcast on Itunes will as there are millions of tem out there who have one, why, for the fact that they are cheap to put together and probably cheap to distribute on iTunes, thats mmy guess, therefore I will reject any claims of notability there, well in another word, like one editor has done, don't bother coming to me and make any claims of notability because having this to be kept is just a invitation for other clubs to star their own articles.
Also, the aim of this afd is to tell any clubs that unless they are notabile enough to have an article here, well don't bother as i don't want to invite all other clubs who thing they can go and write articels about their tinny winny clubs. If they do, I will make it clear that there is one link colour for them and that is red. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alright, I have to speak up now... If there is no way we could ever meet your expectations of being notable then what is the point in a discussion. This isn't a discussion it's an execution. This has less to do with a discussion about guidelines and notability than it does with a grudge against all sites of this nature. I can certainly understand not wanting to allow every single site, similar to NASIOC, on Wikipedia for the simple reason thats most truly aren't notable. They are just another piece of straw in the haystack. However NASIOC, being the single largest site dedicated to Subaru's, which is a feat in it's own right being that Subaru is such a very low production car, and people who are enthusiastic about them is even smaller. The merits of NASIOC as a widely used resource, of notability, should come from the fact that nearly all the technical knowledge about Subaru's on the internet comes from NASIOC. If you need proof, please feel free to Google for nearly any task performed on, or about, a Subaru. I believe being a premier FREE source of information like that is quite an accomplishment, especially in today's internet where so many people are just worrying about where to cram more ads on their site to make an extra buck. What bothers me the most is the salad bar treatment of the rules and guidelines here. We were asked to show notability, we did so. We were told those weren't good enough, fine, we found more. We were told those still weren't good enough. We referenced our Podcast, which as noted according to WP:WEB guidelines is a legit item of notability, to that we are told that anyone can have a podcast that's not enough. After responding properly to the request, we are still being told "that isn't good enough." To that I answer, if you can't tell is what EXACTLY we need to do to pass your test of notability, because as of this point you are no longer using Wikipedia's guidelines, please let us know so we can do our best to make those corrections and be in compliance. If you can't do that, then your AfD is pointless since you personally have decided apparently to set a bar so high it's simply unattainable, and cannot ever be met. My question is why is a site of perhaps arguable even minor notability being so intensely scrutinized when I'm sure there are numerous other wiki's more in need or scrutiny. --NickNASIOC
    • Actually, the guideline has been laid out in front of you. WP:WEB is pretty straightforward. #3 says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". Your Podcast does not work because you have not proven that it is distributed through an independent medium. The mere existence of a Podcast is not notability. You also haven't met #1 since no one has provided any nontrivial reliable secondary sources. And no one has mentioned any awards whatsoever, so #2 isn't met. I don't see what is hard to grasp about this? It is the same standard that every single Wikipedia article is held to. As for the other sites, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...if you feel something fails to meet a notability guideline, then by all means, nominate it for AfD. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am confused. ITunes is not a distributer?? It didnt make the content, and it distributes it to separately from NASIOC. Plain and Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrookes (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garth_Bader may also be a puppet of the same person. I will submit an WP:SSP report on these users for further evaluation. It would seem many of the people arguing for deletion are all one user. Beethoven05 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still no reliable secondary sources. And per the many SPA's above - this article is not being held to a "higher" standard...it is being held to the same standard as every other article on Wikipedia. If you cannot provide nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then you can't prove notability. A podcast is not even remotely a reliable source...I have a podcast and I am not notable... --SmashvilleBONK! 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Well then when it states on WP:WEB under 7 "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial." it should all be ignored. I guess there needs to be a change to WP:WEB before we change NASIOC.--Rcrookes (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a footnote. And it says that content distributed by independent online sites will satisfy the criterion. You haven't shown an independent nontrvial distribution of the podcast. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic automotive special interest group. I think there's something about it in one of my back issues of Car and Driver, but unfortunately they're all back in California right now. I'll give a look at the college library tonight. FCYTravis (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone can provide a significant, third-party reference that has this group as the subject of the article, as called for by WP:N policy, I will change my opinion. Tan | 39 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no reliable sources used as references to establish notability. Any sort of report in an independent car magazine, or newspaper review of a local chapter event would help. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, CarDomain.com is a social networking website and not a reliable source. Big-Boards.com is also a pretty questionable source. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facebook any Myspace are social networking sites and yet if the creators of the site had an interview with NASIOC I would guess you would deem it notable. The social networking aspect of Cardomain is not responsible for the interview. The interview was done by the editors of the site. BigBoards is also independent and third party, what makes it questionable? The fact that you have not heard of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavafox (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. What else is there? The fact that numerous Impreza owners have joined Wikipedia is great. Welcome to Wikipedia. GHowever, that doesn't mean their forum is notable outside of the Impreza owners' circle. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of single purpose accounts flooding this debate has, of course, influenced my decision. But mainly the lack of a significant, third-party reference that has this group as the subject of the article leads me to say we should boot it. Also, the article is skirting our blatent advertising speedy delete criterion, and stealing from a charity never appeals. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way up at the beginning I said "delete unless properly sourced..." Well, tons of sources have been added since then. I think it's fair to say this is about as well as we can do, source-wise. But there's still nothing adequate to allow any kind of encyclopedia article on this topic. I'm willing to admit that as owner's clubs go, this appears to be a big, well-known one. They're active on the internet, to be sure. But there's still nothing much in the way of good usable sources. Friday (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're also pretty unhappy with us. I was quoted on their forum, which is a fascinating read, among other AfD participants, as douchebags, elitist pricks, and so on. Blah blah blah. Heard it all before. It's too bad they (meaning Nick - you know who you are), can't simply find reliable, independent sources that assert and verify the notability of your organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't myspace. It isn't free advertising. Find sources, I'll be your biggest advocate (I'm not a deletion-crazy wikipedian). The onus of proof is on you, Nick. Not Wikipedia. Threatening, by the way, to continue to add the NASIOC page, even after it's deleted, is a violation of our speedy deletion criteria, namely recreation of deleted material. Good luck with that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 9 April 2008 (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/NASIOC&oldid=1138108672"