Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treyten Lapcevich

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 argument in this case has focused on whether the coverage of the subject is "significant" according to the terms of the General Notability Guideline. Sports figures often receive routine mentions in news coverage of their sport and/or data sources for competition statistics, and this type of coverage is not generally seen as establishing notability. The early discussion was largely a debate over whether there was enough coverage beyond that level to establish the notability of this person. The later participants have clearly weighed in with a consensus that there is not enough significant coverage at this time. Given that this subject is a living person and still active in the sport, that could easily change over time, but for this discussion the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treyten Lapcevich[edit]

[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 WP:GNG and ~~WP:NMOTORSPORT~~. Only uses databases as references. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Canada. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he competes at the top level of motorsports in his country. He competed in every race in 2021, finished fifth in the points, and was the series Rookie of the Year. He just won in the series and is on the radar on a major motorsports RS in the United States. Just because the first editor of this article is currently blocked doesn't change the notability of the subject. I contributed to this new article because of the subject has notability far beyond a passing mention or a database entry. Royal broil 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the additional sources added to the article are WP:ROUTINE news reports and do not have any WP:SIGCOV. Subject still fails GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the top level competitors in the highest level of sport in a major country non-notable? Royal broil 01:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what he does, he doesn't meet the general notability guideline. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs such as NMOTORSPORT exist to determine if a subject is likely to meet the GNG. It is not a guarantee either way. Many subjects pass GNG which don't meet their respective SNG, while others who may meet an SNG do not pass the GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the page of the article's creator, Royalbroil, I see that they are no longer blocked. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Actually passes WP:NMOTORSPORT 4.1. Lapcevich won a round of a primarily-professional series of significant national importance, also noted by @Royalbroil. I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. ~XyNq^t_c 16:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. - Thank you for highlighting a major, major problem within Wikiproject: Motorsport/Wikiproject: NASCAR. The article you link to was made by the same user who made this article, who made the article with absolutely zero regard for notability requirements. We have many editors who do such things and we simply cannot send all of these articles to AfD faster than what they are made. The fact that a massive cleanup is needed in this wikiproject should not be used as an argument in this particular AfD and I implore the closing admin to reject this argument. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I wasn't aware that article was created by the same person, I just saw it existed. In the case of that then, this article probably could be deleted along with the race article. I also notice all other links in the results list are redirects to the track itself and not synopses of the race. However, I do maintain that the driver in question does pass NMOTORSPORT, but needs more biographical info to constitute an article. ~XyNq^t_c 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been improved by the article creator, therefore I change my vote back to Keep. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Are there any changes that could be made to the article that could have it pass any necessary guidelines? Thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nascarbball24: If you can find sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE that cover the driver sufficiently and directly, it might help to pass WP:GNG. ~XyNq^t_c 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiple sources, as well as information in an attempt to improve this page. Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascarbball24: It still might need some editing to just clean up a little bit, but the added sources and info definitely help a lot. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but of the 4 additional sources added, this and this are press releases which fail WP:V as they are not independent of the subject, while this and this are WP:ROUTINE news releases with no SIGCOV. None of these can count towards GNG for those reasons. We cannot write an encyclopedic article from these, and Wikipedia is not a mindless database. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might be more content now but sourcing hasn't improved. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PR sources should be fine because they are only being referenced to show Lapcevich's participation in race series. The general concern outlined for press releases at WP:PRSOURCE seems to be focused on how press releases can include undue praise. Also I'm concerned how you think those two articles you addressed as routine have no significant coverage of Lapcevich as the articles cover him completely and directly. Not to mention, they are not routine articles much at all: the one about Lapcevich being slated to drive in Tagliani's car was published 5 days before the scheduled event. Far from routine if you ask me, unless you consider driver debuts as routine. ~XyNq^t_c 02:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that press releases explicitly fail the GNG by default. Furthermore, race teams make last minute announcements all of the time; the timing of these announcements has zero bering on their ROUTINEness, instead their content does. Both articles make a passing mention of finishing 3rd place in the "Ontario APC Series" but don't go into any further detail, since both articles are routine in their coverage. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 03:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're seriously stretching how ROUTINE is defined. While I think there shouldn't be two articles used there since they're pretty much about the same thing, I disagree that they're routine. The fact that you are stretching the definition of routine so much implores me to bring up the fact that, as said in WP:NOTROUTINE, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline intended for citing in articles about events (hence ROUTINE's much less used shortcut WP:DOGBITESMAN). ~~You are leaning much too heavily on trying to tear this article down based on stretching interpretation of guidelines.~~ Regarding your issue with those press releases failing GNG: if you want to stretch definitions, you could argue that those press releases are independent of Lapcevich himself because he did not make and publish them, therefore making them valid sources because they are independent. At worst article could be modified to mention that was referenced in a PR. Also, I'm curious, how does only a passing mention of him placing 3rd in a series constitute an article being routine? I'm not trying to ask that maliciously, I'm genuinely curious what your rationale is there. ~XyNq^t_c 04:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, there is nothing to tear down because, as I have already said there is nothing with which to write an encyclopedic article about this subject. Please strike this accusation. I'm not stretching anything. Both of them essentially say "Subject announced to drive for Team in Race/Series." That is the very definition of routine. Both of them offer very little, if any detail on the subject himself, other than what I already mentioned. These basic news announcements are not enough. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the statement put on the article that is referencing that piece isn't particularly large here and only really is using it for what I said, that is, noting the fact of his debut in the series. I won't fall back on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS despite how tempting it is (at least this group isn't as bad as WP:OLYMPICS, you should see that). and I do enjoy having a discussion on this really. It's generally hard to find coverage of auto racing drivers from independent or non-"routine" sources. Also again with ROUTINE being an events guideline, if this article was "Participation of Treyton Lapcevich in the ACP series" then I would agree to delete it. But this article is not that. Also, I apologise for the false accusation. I striked it, as mentioned. ~XyNq^t_c 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney is correct here, press releases are definitely, unequivocally rejected from consideration for notability; and failing ROUTINE is a widely-accepted rationale at athlete AfDs when referring to general competitor announcements (it is more often called "transactional coverage" in football, cricket, etc.). JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we need more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the most in-depth independent coverage a subject receives is a handful of sentences reporting he will be standing in for another competitor at a non-notable competition, the subject fails both GNG and BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV has been identified, and without it WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as stands still fails to reach the SIGCOV threshold. A search of my own yielded at best glancing or incidental mentions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to reach WP:SIGCOV. Nascar9919 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 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.