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. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Racing Association[edit]

The Online Racing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am having a little difficult working out what exactly this is. "TORA is based on the Xbox 360" suggests that it is just a computer game. But the author has admitted his COI on my talk page. there is no evidence of notability and it is written in an horribly unencyclopedic tone. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TORA is a well established Sim Racing governing body. We operate our championships on the xbox 360 platform for the stated reasons.

What do you mean by notability is this instance?

AJ --AJzero (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE, possibly WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Basically you need significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? We shall be appearing in tomorrow's edition of Autosport if that helps? Can you explain the issue here, this is clearly a genuine and thought out entry. --AJzero (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of it appears to be original research. My suggestion is to locate non-trivial coverage in independent sources and add them to the article, in a reference section. Article content must be verifiable. My suggestion is to review WP:NOTE and satisfy the basic conditions. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appearing in a magazine, on a radio show and TV show be acceptable for notability? As far as verifying the content, would linking to the results archive on our website be sufficient? Thanks for your assistance. --AJzero (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the coverage is in-depth and not just trivial mentions and can be checked somehow it would be fine. Primary sources such as your own website can be used in the article but not to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would stating at the bottom of the page that TORA has a regular segment on a radio station that has its own wiki entry suffice your 'notability' requirements?--AJzero (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All self promotion has been removed. The entry is now purely factual. --AJzero (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax? I find that highly insulting. Our website link is in the info box and our forums can be found there too. We have been established since November 2007 and have run over 15 highly successful championships with over 80 meetings. We are well know within our demographic, and have partnerships with other entities within the Sim Racing and motorsport communities. I have given suggestions to meet your notability, but I rase concern that entries can be suggested for deletion just because administrators know nothing about the topic, is that not the whole point of wikipedia? --AJzero (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular editor like you, not an administrator. Our notability guidelines require that non-trivial information needs to be published about a topic by multiple, reliable sources. If I do a search for "The Online Racing Association" on google, and only get a single forum post on the first couple pages of results, then it's somewhat likely that a topic is not notable. Of course this is biased toward Internet sources, so in cases where it's likely that there is published work that isn't on the net, we often supplement with library and scholarly searches.
In addition, it's entirely appropriate for you to bring additional reliable sources to our attention as well. So far you've been very vague about the nature of these additional reliable sources, so until you provide more specific information, all we have to go on is our own research.
Anyway, the bottom line is, no one here should be using "I've never heard of it" as a standard, and if they do, their input will be ignored. What I'm seeing are people raising legitimate concerns, that you should not dismiss, but rather need to address by giving us specific sourcing to establish notability. Gigs (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


| I understand what you are saying, this is my first time adding to wiki and am not used to this (seemingly) high level of citation. On the other hand it is quite clear this is not a hoax, as you can see from our website!

here are some sources;

http://www.radiolemans.com/ Frequently featured on The Midweek Motorsport Show, including latest episode. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5508588715 Strong presence on the MWM collective.

youtube - account TORAmedia

Autosport - 28/05/09

forzamotorsport.net - strong presence on forums and featured in forza 2 community update 20th February 2009

Forums - in both directories.

forumotion.net - toraonlineracing.forumotion.net

freeforums.org - britgt.freeforums.org/

SRT - ongoing partnership, with appearance on episode 42 of ISR. --AJzero (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An internet radio station... OK. Hard to verify though if they don't archive. Facebook is not a reliable source. Youtube is not a reliable source. The only mention of it on Autosport is a forum post, which is not a reliable source. On ForzaMotorSport, again, just a forum post. These forum posts don't even have replies! forumotion... another forum, freeforums... you get the idea. You can't just make promotional forum posts and then cite them as sources. For all we know, you made this whole thing up. Gigs (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Made the whole thing up? Have you not visited our website or forum?

Here is the iTunes feed for the radio station's archive - http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=83115817

I am talking about Autosport, the magazine.--AJzero (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't visited your site, last time I tried, your web site was unreachable. Also your site does not show up on google when searched for. All I have is your word and a few forum posts that it even exists. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theonlineracingassociation.com/TORA/Home.html

We have been having metadata problems. typing theonlineracingassociation into google will find us.--AJzero (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have now added two (highly) credible sources to the entry, can this now be taken off articles for deletion please. --AJzero (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wki guidelines on non-commercial organization notability state;

Non-commercial organizations

Shortcut

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

The scope of our activities is international in scale. (we have members from all over the world.)

Our activities can be verified by Radio Le Mans and Autosport.

Therefore this entry should be removed from 'articles for deletion.--AJzero (talk) 17:32, 28 May 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.
More