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 redirect to
Oval track racing. Sufficient consensus that the article should not be kept, at least as it stands source-wise. Amongst those !voting for redirect there seems consensus for this redirect target. Content remains in edit history to aid in any new article
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)reply
On top of a multitude of issues, including mostly being a
directory in it's current form, it has absolutely no sources whatsoever. Violates
WP:V and
WP:NOR. The article
Oval track racing already contains ample info on the subject in it's prose.
GhostOfDanGurney (
talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The problem with that is the part of the article that isn't a list (which already exists at Oval track racing) is unreferenced original research. I'm honestly not sure how that lead has managed to survive since 2004 mostly intact.
GhostOfDanGurney (
talk) 19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The topic is so special, the article was probably never really read by anyone. I'm just a list freak, and so I removed the list duplicates to other articles some time ago. The topic itself does not interest me so much. --
Mark McWire (
talk) 20:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect into
oval track racing. I see little content of value and especially the outdated directory of short tracks. No prejudice against anyone who would want to create a reliably sourced+cited article on this topic but it would need to start from scratch. A short track is a subset of oval track racing - the smallest of oval track (1 mile / 1.6km and shorter). Royalbroil 00:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
comment. I pretty much agree. I had originally wanted to work on the article, but I quickly realized that
WP:TNT is likely the best option.
GhostOfDanGurney (
talk) 01:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep However the article is poorly sourced but it is informative.
NANExcella (
talk) 11:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
RoySmith(talk) 00:38, 28 July 2018 (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.