Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steel Guiliana

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. The arguments that the level of coverage is not significant enough to show notability have not been effectively refuted. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Guiliana[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical and an unnecesary disambig:

Non-Notable. Article only mentions one race in a low category of motorsport, Formula BMW, and several other "also rans" in karting. Highly POV article. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person was mentioned in Motorsport, they've also been mentioned in the Daily Telegraph (Australia), Northern Territory News (Australia), Africa News and The Herald (Harare), seems notable. The article does need a lot of clean-up though. (I will post the full articles from the newspapers on request). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could cite this coverage, it will certainly help. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are race result reports where he is mentioned such as this one. But the coverage is not significant. Nor is it numerous. I am not familiar with Formula BMW racing but according to our own article on it, it is an entry level series with a restriction to lower classes FIA racing licenses. If the series is a fully professional one, one could argue that he meets WP:ATHLETE, but the low level of the series and the lack of coverage doesn't establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no evidence of satisying wp:athlete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Panyd. Cybervoron (talk) 12:54, 22 November 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.