Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Bachetti

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. The article is clearly far better-sourced than it was when most of the delete votes were made. I was tempted to go for an unprecedented third relist, but as it is it's probably best to close the current debate one way or another due to the greatly changed condition of the article. If someone has genuine concerns over the continuing sourcing of the article, then they may renominate the article for a fresh debate. ~ mazca ^talk 11:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bachetti[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur racing driver. Fails WP:ATHLETE/Motorsport and WP:GNG. Only drives at a local short track. Drdisque (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ☭FryPod 00:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the !vote above by a banned user. Deor (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable person, no citations at all, the one external goes nowhere at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can show me some sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick search revealed what may pass as reliable sources for the claims made in the article. However, the subject does not appear to meet the notability standards for motorsports athletes set by the appropriate guideline. Tiderolls 15:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me just note that it is extremely disappointing that, in recent AfDs, there seems to be a trend among Delete voters to not actually look to see if citations exist or make even a general survey for notability beyond the article itself. Silver seren^C 18:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that, often a blind person could see the person is not notable, this article has been here years and not had any citations added. I did a google search before I vote commented as I always do. http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Andy+Bachetti&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b. On a side note the Keep vote commenter has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide evidence of notability or just make slanderous remarks you have no proof of? Ridernyc (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I offended you, I didn't mean to do that. The rationales for the Delete votes seemed, to me, to indicate that the two of you just looked at the article and that was it. I was clearly wrong, I apologize. Silver seren^C 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, emphasis is easily mistaken through the keyboard and you clearly meant no ill will. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added in references for most of the things in the article and added some more race info. It's clear that, if he's going to meet the Additional Guidelines, it would have to be fore number 1, "Have driven in a fully professional series." The problem is that, for dirt racing, I don't know what competitions count as fully professional. From the tone of the references, it seems to me that this Super DIRTcar Series would be fully professional, as would a few of the other races he's been involved in. Can someone tell me what races count as fully professional for modified dirt racing championships? Silver seren^C 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the guideline: "A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series." I would be surprised if any automobile dirt track racing would pass that standard. It's not impossible, though. Tiderolls 21:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then...that's not a useful standard to use in terms of dirt racing. Shouldn't we just default to the GNG in that case? Silver seren^C 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He looks, fluffed up now and still only notable in a small corner of the world. I am also not finding much content about him at some of those citations, but it is difficult to see, what is the content in this citation http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dLotAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z4gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2072,6625379&dq=andy-bachetti&hl=en Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source is used to note and reference, as it says in the article text, that he participated in the I Love New York Championship and also placed second behind Tony Stewart. (I should really be saying The Tony Stewart.) Silver seren^C 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suitability of the standard is a subject for the guideline page. Tiderolls 22:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, that cite says he came second in a race, is the race notable? That Tony Stewart is clearly notable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the race is notable? How do we tell? Does a race have to be notable (as in, having an article on Wikipedia) in order to be mentioned? Silver seren^C 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its just imo a reflection that citation of a google archive newspaper search result is being used to support that he came second in a not notable race. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only I love New York Championship I can find coverage for is a golf tournament. Still have not seen any sources to establish notability. Lots of fluff from local newspapers and racing sites of questionable quality. Ridernyc (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the race has to be at least semi-important, unless Tony Stewart is going around racing in no-name championships. He could be, I suppose. Silver seren^C 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone one can make assumptions that's why we have guidelines and rely on citations from reliable sources. By the way the correct name for the race appears to have been "The I love New York 100" and I can find a total of 2 local news hits for it on Google news [1]. Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started a discussion on the Notability (sports) talk page about what series count as professional for dirt track racing. Please come and join the discussion. Silver seren^C 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that default to the GNG is the way to go here from what was stated there. Silver seren^C 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NSPORTS just generalizes when someone is likely to meet WP:GNG. If there is ambiguity if someone meets WP:NSPORTS then you must find sources to pass WP:GNG. Actually you are supposed to find sources anyways. But you get my point I am sure. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the sources then? Silver seren^C 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just noticed that I didn't vote. Based upon the conclusion at the Notability (sports) talk page, that "modified dirt track racing" doesn't really work with the Motorsports additional guidelines, as there aren't really any "professional" races in the type of racing, that means that we must fall back to the GNG in such cases. And it is quite clear to me that the subject passes GNG in a very ably manner. Silver seren^C 16:16, 13 August 2010 (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.