Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Spainsh GP2 Race

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 delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Spainsh GP2 Race

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines, per discussion of a similar article on a motorsport series at the same approximate level of competition. --Midgrid (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete 2009 Spanish GP2 Race but delete 2009 spainish gp2 race The article called 2009 Spainish GP2 Race is useless, i accidently spelt the title wrong. Besides, the other articles are very useful, with info on both races and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshgp2 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Midgrid. Cs-wolves (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect not needed.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better throw 2009 Spanish GP2 Race, 2009 Monaco GP2 Race, 2009 Tukish GP2 Race and 2009 Turkish GP2 Race into the mix also. Cs-wolves (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this level of open-wheel racing, I think just a season overview article is all that is needed. All the race results are posted there and if anything unusual happens in a race then it can be added as a note on the season overview article. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Redirect as it is an implausible spelling and Keep the main article. I expect that multiple reliable sources can be found for a series of this magnitude. Just because the series is not as high as Formula One in the world view doesn't mean that there aren't enough reliable sources available for it. The general notability standards should apply - as long as sufficient number of reliable sources are found. I wonder if commenters are arbitrarily picking their personal standards of notability instead of looking at WP:NOTE. WP:NOTE for organizations says "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Commenters appear to be commenting with their opinion of the series' importance. Royal broil 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a 2009 GP2 season article. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was cut-and-pasted to 2009 Spanish GP2 Race, then histmerged — 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 British GP2 Race also created by the same user. Only GP2 and Autosport sources are being used, so this should result in the same decision as the WSbR articles; Redirect at very best but I stand by Delete. Cs-wolves (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 2009 German GP2 Race has also been created and falls under the remit of this AfD.--Midgrid (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (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.