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 heavy on stats and results, and light on description. However, a look through the source material in the page did show the AutoSport articles give some coverage to the 2021 event. As such, there is sufficient merit to the "keep" side arguing that WP:GNG is passed, even if this is a fairly minor and junior level event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ginetta Junior Championship[edit]

2021 Ginetta Junior Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable motorsports competition. This article was already draftified once by User:Onel5969, but then created again in article space by the originator (rather than discussing with the reviewer). The article does not speak for itself in establishing notability, and the references do not speak for it either, because one is paywalled and the other is the subject's own web site:

Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Being behind a paywall is not a valid reason to discount a source per WP:PAYWALL. I also wonder why one would think that Forix is "probably not" independent when they are a highly regarded results database, and I am unaware of any reason to think they are in any way involved with this championship. That said, the coverage there is most likely NOT going to establish notability since it would be just results (I don't currently have a subscription). A7V2 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Forix is an indepent source, but it is also just a stats database, and therefore not sufficent to prove notability. Performing a quick google search, the only source which is both indepedent and not an indiscrimante database is this article:[1], which is not sufficent to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.
  SSSB (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Robert McClenon and A7V2: I think that the table may not have come out the way it was intended. I've WP:BOLDly changed it: Special:Diff/1030008496.
  SSSB (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: Ah well that makes a bit more sense! I have struck some of my above comment. A7V2 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is teetering on the fence regarding notability, but what sources there are, combined with the live television coverage, are enough to lead me to believe that this article's subject just about meets the WP:GNG. I've added a source which provides relatively significant coverage of the subject, and performing a WP:BEFORE search suggests there are a few others. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Currently meets GNG with the new sources added and generally newer sources will be posted as the season develops as we have seen with both the 2020 Ginetta Junior Championship and the 2019 Ginetta Junior Championship. FozzieHey (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A very minor event, so having an article for each edition of it is not notable. None of the competitors even have their own page on here. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is an excellent article and well done and well polished. There's plenty of references in the article, and it's of broad enough interest to enough general users. Arguments have been made both for and against WP:GNG and I'm of the opinion that if it does somehow lean against passing WP:GNG even though some people agree with that and some people don't, then WP:NORULES should apply because this article is a useful contribution to the WP project. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. The article is essentially just a list of results which could be seen to violate WP:STATISTICS. The only substance is one paragraph of context. I'm not arguing for or against deletion but I don't see how you can describe one introductory paragraph as a well-done article or 3 independent references as plenty.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]