Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeepspeed

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepspeed

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

Largely promotional about a non-notable amateur off-road racing organization. Some minor coverage in specialist magazines does not establish notability, no independent ghits Kuguar03 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are a few third-party sources listed in the references section, but not significant coverage. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no problem finding independent reliable sources like Motor Trend and I added. This is an entry-level to lower class of off-road racing vehicle that is showing up in national-level events like BITD (Best In The Desert). If the tone gets promotional towards Jeep then it can be edited out, but as a notable race class it should be kept. Royal broil 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs improvement but that's no reason for a deletion. Seems pretty notable given all the secondary sources.ArchieOof (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Might as well snowball at this point. I still don't seeing this topic as ever being notable, and the fact that the article was created by a SPA for clearly promotional purposes is troublesome, but if at least 3 other editors are willing to fix it up then so be it. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. An article being poorly written is no reason for deletion. I'd also like to say that Kuguar03 should show more discretion in nominating articles for deletion in the future - especially if the creator of it is new to wikipedia, as they were in this case. Having one of your articles being put up for deletion must be disheartening for such users, and can potentially chase them away from wikipedia.--Piast93 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 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.