Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races

Top Gear races

The topics of each article show no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and so do not appear to meet the primary notability criteria. The contents of each article is already adequately covered in several sections of the main article (Top Gear (current format)).

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Top Gear Cheap Car Challenges

Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car

Power Laps

The Cool Wall

Guest9999 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is facile and ridiculous ^† D B D 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I asked why? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - I agree that the articles don't really have any current outside sources for notability, but I think that Top Gear has enough coverage that they can easily be found. As for being adequately covered, I personally find the unduplicated information quite useful. Admittedly that's bordering on WP:ILIKEIT, but it seems relevant to me. mattbuck (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to overstate the popularity of Top Gear and it's a big call to say no sources or reviews discussing these segments could possibly be found. Nick mallory (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep Just got a game for Christmas with one line on the board called "the Cool Wall". No idea what it meant, wikied it, got full answer here and, may I add, had a good time reading it all. Isn't that what Wikipedia is (great) about? Why censure/delete it? This is just nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.201.175 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Top Gear (current format)#The Cool Wall (which could be a redirect target if neccessary) would have also told you what it was about and does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong keep You missed The Stig BTW. I am afraid that all these articles are now a British institution. Jeremy Clarkson has written many books where secondary references could be found even if he is one of the presenters, not to mention motorsport, motoring and mens magazines. It is of great interest to many (and notable) how fast an F1 driver can get a family saloon round a track. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply a book by the presenter of the show (and participent in the events) does not count as an independent source so cannot be used to establish notability. Personnaly I have not seen articles about the events in independent motoring magazines or publications. Whilst they may have been mentioned in passing several times I doubt they have recieved significant coverage (happy to be proved wrong with examples). Notability is not inherited (links to essay), being part of a notable show does not make something notable in its own right. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Note and while the current article doesn't necesarily make it clear I think The Stig is actually notable due to sources such as [1] and [2] (found after a quick Google search, I'm sure there are more out there. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Absolute Keep"No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?

It's a Television show. You want to know in which episode a particular event happened you can research it here. There is no variable. It's either right, or it's wrong. And it's right. Furthermore, they are not covered in the main article. These are independent pages, and rightly so, there's already so much up on the main page. Keep it.[[User:KeepTopGear 0:18, 9 January 2008]]— 99.232.250.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Or... if you want to find out what episode something happens in you could look at the existing article, List of Top Gear episodes, which lists every episode and what happened in each of them. Also "KeepTopGear" does not appear to be a registered user account. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Absolute Keep: As the other users who want it kept suggested. It's a national treasure. All the necessary information is there. The idiot who suggested these articles should be deleted needs their head examined! JRRobinson (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - JRRobinson, please be aware that calling people names does not help your cause (WP:CIVIL). Much as I hate to say it, we do need sources for this all. Oh, and Guest 9999, please just add your signature as ~~~~ not [[~~~~]]. mattbuck (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Top Gear article. While the content is valid and verifiable, there does not seem to be sufficient grounds for creating individual articles about segments of the show. - fchd (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per fchd. ^anemone│_projectors 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's about a huge hit in Britain, for which I can not understand, but notable nonetheless. Each article could stand by itself with a bit of editing. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:There is no deadline - and this applies to finding sources. The content of this article is valid and verifiable. I don't agree with the idea of a merge/redirect. --Solumeiras ^talk 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but why is this better server in a seperate article and not merged in to the main TopGear article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current Top gear article is rather large as it is, without adding this information back in. mattbuck (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no deadline (an essay) only applies if there is currently the possibility of improving an article to the standards required by policies and guidelines. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep. The material passes the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and cannot be adequately covered through a merge with the main Top Gear article due to the existing length of the latter. Cynical (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - sources (at least looking through a search engine) are extremely hard to come by, what I have find are videos uploaded onto websites (legally dodgy), blogs and forum postings (both of those not acceptable as sources as per WP:V), therefore the articles have no chance of meeting that aforementioned guideline. As for merging the text into the main Top Gear article, not even the text for any of the nominated articles in the main article is referenced! Strictly under WP:V, that could all be deleted as well (I won't, but it does need referencing). The same arguments that are affecting video game deletions could also apply here, in the way that specific elements and databases of a video game are being deleted (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations), this should also apply to television programmes as well. You could go as far as class the articles as Top Gear fancruft and trivia (it could violate WP:NOT#GUIDE if television programme segments were included in the same reasons as for other topics, ie. game and travel guides). Due to the above arguments, notability cannot be established for all the articles. Don't get me wrong, I love Top Gear, and its appointment to view television for me every Sunday, but I feel that specific sections of episodes (in the same way that parts of video games have been deleted for the same reasons) are better served by a fan site or a off-site Wiki. --tgheretford (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEP KEEP. Its interesting, its notable and it is enjoyed by a worldwide audience. I dont see a problem here. --Bud (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong KEep". I'll poop in your shoes if you don't keep it.64.130.183.199 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep These are the only real informative pages on this subject. Why are they up for deletion? 81.110.245.215 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]