Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trackpedia

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 speedy delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trackpedia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails the general notability guideline. The only sources I could find were forum posts, affiliated pages and unreliable YouTube and Vimeo videos. Page creator appears to have been a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the website on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Article is written like an advertisement, and I'm shocked that this was nominated for deletion before this. Spf121188 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator's comments. Quite an audacious bit of advertising. Subject lacks meaningful coverage and what exists does not warrant an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article for an apparently non-notable subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not only does it read like an advertisement, it also solicits advertising. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising material and promotional content. Mann Mann (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional tone aside, the sources on this page fail WP:SIGCOV, and other than brief mentions in book sources, I was unable to find any that pass. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy delete this promotional content. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's starting to snow Spf121188 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though CSD:G11 does not apply since this article is not “exclusively promotional,” it is somewhat descriptive of the topic. However this is still a clear fail of GNG per nom Frank Anchor 02:22, 5 February 2022 (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.