355:
form, even on a volunteer website like
Knowledge. By actually checking out the listed sources and SNO content, you'll find that people from all over the world hunt down the club to sign up. That alone should be enough to convince a fair-minded person that the SNO article describes a movement of consequence. If that's still not enough to save the article, perhaps it's time to discuss how words acquire new meanings and popular phrases are coined. Having been in publishing for many years, I can tell you that our English lexicon is not defined in the staff meetings of "reliable source" publications. Individuals determine how words are used as they communicate with one another about things that matter to them. Whether the words are first used in a popular movie or in a popular forum is not what matters. What counts is how many people begin to apply the new meaning to a word or phrase. I expect that very few major media sources will ever use "non originale" because very few major sources cover in depth things that matter to we who are automotive enthusiasts. Fortunately, clubs and forums exist to take up the slack. In closing, your honor, I'd like the article to remain on Wiki, but if it doesn't, so be it. ScuderiaNOman
399:
can't just say that there is coverage in something and then not provide anything about the source because not all newspaper mentions are equal. Yes, the San Jose
Mercury News is typically considered to be a reliable source in many instances but the paper also posts things like routine mentions of events, letters to the editor, articles written by someone involved with the topic at hand, and other things that are not considered to be in-depth enough to show notability for a subject like the subject only getting a brief passing mention in an article about a more general topic. There's a pretty long list of things that can make something from an otherwise reliable source unusable to show notability. Also, when it comes to websites being popular does not always make it a reliable source. The site has to undergo a fairly rigorous and verifiable editorial process and even if it would pass muster at
274:
which there are millions, is the "non originale" attitude and the open expression of it. By using the club's name generically, it became easy to quickly communicate an attitude in the long-running debate between "original only" car enthusiasts and those who like to modify their vehicles, the "non originale" types. This original versus non originale debate is huge in the auto world. Therefore, it is not of small importance among auto enthusiasts that
Scuderia Non Originale -- the club and the generic phrase -- gives voice to car enthusiasts around the world. Non originale enthusiasts are constantly being pressured by the legalistic original types and, in fact, are not even allowed to compete for awards at any major car show for classic and collectible automobiles.
350:
enthusiast who understands not only cars, but the language of the automotive world. If you were to look me up in the
Library of Congress, you would find a number of books and magazines edited by me. Six of my books have been sold to automobile mechanics for decades. Just as you didn't mean to sound harsh, I don't mean to brag, only to point out that I've made a living with words for a long, long time. You write that a few people on the internet are not enough to provide credibility for the Scuderia article. I agree, so I'm going to suggest that before you do anything else, you go to the SNO website and take a look at how many countries are represented by its members:
312:), but at worst it's pretty much just a bunch of people talking in a forum and because it is so incredibly easy for people to make fake forum posts to promote a topic, Knowledge does not consider this to give notability. Don't take this to mean that I think that the club is making fake posts, it's just that people have done this in the past to try to gain credibility on Knowledge and failed in the process to where it's been considered a non-usable source since almost the inception of Knowledge. I think that at most it can be considered a
278:
to have been something that someone came up with one day and it just never really caught on as a term." That is patently untrue and contrary to evidence. When you wanted to delete the
Scuderia Non Originale article last time, we responded by easily finding 10 sources that use "scuderia non originale" and "non originale" as generic terms to describe modified cars. One of you countered by claiming that comments in car forums don't count. That's a personal opinion that flies in the face of reality.
403:(to be fair, I'll run it through the noticeboard), that would pretty much be the only verifiable source on the article. The others are all either completely unverifiable or they're just not considered to be reliable sources per Knowledge's guidelines. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of anyone in your club, the forums, or those websites, but Knowledge is pretty strict about what is or isn't considered to be usable as a reliable source. Forums aren't usable, neither are any primary sources.
317:
place for this article on
Knowledge at this point in time and there's really no way to improve it right now because I can pretty much guarantee that it will be deleted. I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh because it's really not my intention to sound as such- it's just that other than a few random people talking about the phrase and mentioning the club in a few forums, this isn't really talked about by anyone in any place that would be considered a reliable source per
362:
an internationally known cartoonist-illustrator at that -- who allows SNO to use many of his automotive illustrations because he is a "non originale" guy, like the rest of SNO's members? Does he qualify as a reliable source? Guy's work appears in at least three major automotive magazines on a monthly basis. He and Anna-Louise would be hurt to learn they are not reliable in the eyes of Wiki's editorial volunteers. You don't want to hurt their feelings, do you?
282:
find automotive terminology being used. You wouldn't go to a baseball game to learn about the language of ballet, but you can go to forums about baseball to learn the language of baseball. Obviously, the same holds true for the auto world. If you want to know the language of car people, you hang out with them, including in their forums.
361:
PS -- Almost forgot to mention that Anna-Louise
Felstead, the artist whose work graces a number of SNO's web pages, is now part of the cast of a popular British reality TV series. Does that make her a reliable source for speaking to the significance of SNO? Or how about Guy Allen, a second artist --
354:
When editing copy about a subject you know little or nothing about, you cannot be accurate or effective without first doing your homework. In this case, that includes examining the quality of the forums that are listed in the article. Discounting them without knowing anything about them is very poor
393:
source since it would be in her best interests to not only talk about SNO, but to talk about it in a positive manner. So would anyone else that is involved with the club as a whole, as primary sources cannot show notability. As for the San Jose
Mercury News source, all you did was post a name and a
289:
What we should be discussing, in our view, is how to make the article better fit into
Knowledge. The article presents a good example of how generic terms come into use. It isn't often one can pinpoint the use of new terms so clearly. If your goal is to hold Knowledge's articles to a high standard,
281:
First, your comment ignores the fact that the forum references are from different people on different continents, writing across a 10-year timeframe. Second, auto forums are where auto enthusiasts go to exchange information and discuss their hobby. Auto forums are exactly where one should expect to
277:
On an entirely different level, we are surprised and stunned that you can simply delete the article because we haven't met a Wiki guideline we don't understand ... or because people who are not auto enthusiasts don't understand the phenomenon the article describes. One of you wrote: "This appears
398:
mention, or anything to this extent. I couldn't find anything on the newspaper's website when I put in the words "Scuderia Non
Originale" or "Non Originale". (If you can find an archived version on Highbeam or a similar news archiving site, that can help show that the article could be usable.) You
316:
source, but that's only when it's the official person/organization commenting and we can verify that it is them. Now when it comes to discussing how to make the article better fit into Knowledge, the issue is that since the club and phrase have not received coverage in reliable sources, there's no
285:
As for promoting the Club, it collects no dues or fees of any type and the only products found on the site are club stickers that are offered for a $ 3 donation to cover the cost of postage -- and which allow those who buy them to flaunt their "non originale" attitude. Given that the club doesn't
273:
Scuderia Non Originale is both a club with worldwide membership and an attitude that describes a great many collectible car enthusiasts throughout the world. In our view, the club isn't important at all. Any link to the club's page can be deleted. What counts in the minds of auto enthusiasts, of
349:
It appears that you are not familiar with the San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley's main source of news for more than 50 years. It also appears that you are not familiar with VeloceToday, the very popular on-line magazine for Italian and French car enthusiasts. I know both because I am a car
230:
by the article's creator- especially given the somewhat promotional tone of the article. (This was likely done in an attempt to make the club and term seem more notable as opposed to out and out promotion, FWIW.) Even the club itself doesn't seem to really pass notability guidelines either, so
307:
The thing about forums is that they aren't usable as reliable sources in the slightest, not per Knowledge's guidelines. Now having a lot of chatter on forums can make it more likely that something will gain coverage in reliable sources (newspapers, news shows, magazines, articles on reliable
231:
turning this into an article about the club rather than the term doesn't really seem to be an option here. Other than a few mentions in various forums (which cannot be used as reliable sources) and various routine database listings for the club, there really is nothing out there.
168:
225:
enough hits coming up to where this could be debated. Either way, I don't see where this term is particularly noteworthy enough to warrant an entry and I'm also concerned about what appears to be a strong
290:
we applaud you. Please don't kill our article; help us improve it. If you have some other reason for not wanting this article included, please share it. We are at a loss as to what is happening here.
459:
162:
439:
121:
251:
The thing is, even if the term is used by a handful of people this does not automatically mean that the term is notable or that the club is notable because it exists.
479:
270:
Hello Gbawden and Tokyogirl79. Rather than trying to delete a legitimate article, will you please help us with suggestions on how to make it more clear?
94:
89:
217:. This appears to have been something that someone came up with one day and it just never really caught on as a term. It possibly could be deleted as
98:
128:
81:
286:
appear to be promoted, and a Knowledge listing isn't likely to bring it new members, promotion probably should not enter into the discussion.
378:
183:
150:
17:
419:
On a side note, we should probably move this to the article talk page since this is taking up a lot of room on the AfD space.
389:
No, Felstead would not be considered a reliable source since her artwork is used on the SNO's webpages. This would make her a
144:
529:
512:
491:
471:
451:
430:
414:
394:
newspaper. We have no way of knowing if this was an article about the club, if it was a letter to the editor, a brief
382:
332:
299:
262:
242:
208:
63:
199:
Is this article encylopedic or a car club definition that should be in a dictionary? It reads like an opinion piece
500:
140:
548:
85:
40:
190:
374:
295:
77:
69:
544:
509:
423:
407:
370:
325:
291:
255:
235:
36:
366:
309:
308:
websites) but forum posts do not give notability. At best all it shows is that something is popular (
343:"... the issue is that since the club and phrase have not received coverage in reliable sources ..."
156:
523:
176:
487:
467:
447:
395:
390:
313:
204:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
543:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
420:
404:
322:
252:
232:
400:
227:
218:
59:
483:
463:
443:
318:
200:
115:
351:
503:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
54:
537:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
522:
no significant coverage in independent sources. -M.Altenmann
111:
107:
103:
175:
508:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
460:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
440:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
551:). No further edits should be made to this page.
480:list of Language-related deletion discussions
189:
8:
478:Note: This debate has been included in the
458:Note: This debate has been included in the
438:Note: This debate has been included in the
352:http://www.gwandrw.com/sno-membership-list/
477:
457:
437:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
530:18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
513:14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
492:15:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
472:15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
452:15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
431:12:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
415:12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
383:09:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
333:05:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
300:18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
263:10:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
243:10:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
209:09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
64:23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
568:
540:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
78:Scuderia Non Originale
70:Scuderia Non Originale
221:, although there are
52:. enough consensus
48:The result was
515:
494:
474:
454:
386:
369:comment added by
559:
542:
507:
505:
427:
411:
385:
363:
329:
259:
239:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
34:
567:
566:
562:
561:
560:
558:
557:
556:
555:
549:deletion review
538:
516:
498:
425:
409:
364:
327:
257:
237:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
565:
563:
554:
553:
533:
532:
506:
497:
496:
495:
475:
455:
435:
434:
433:
417:
387:
347:
346:
345:
344:
338:
337:
336:
335:
268:
267:
266:
265:
246:
245:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
564:
552:
550:
546:
541:
535:
534:
531:
528:
527:
521:
518:
517:
514:
511:
504:
502:
493:
489:
485:
481:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
429:
428:
422:
418:
416:
413:
412:
406:
402:
397:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:ScuderiaNOman
368:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
331:
330:
324:
320:
315:
311:
310:WP:ITSPOPULAR
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
292:ScuderiaNOman
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
264:
261:
260:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
244:
241:
240:
234:
229:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
539:
536:
525:
519:
510:NorthAmerica
499:
424:
408:
365:— Preceding
348:
326:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
256:
236:
222:
214:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
421:Tokyogirl79
405:Tokyogirl79
323:Tokyogirl79
253:Tokyogirl79
233:Tokyogirl79
163:free images
396:WP:TRIVIAL
391:WP:PRIMARY
314:WP:TRIVIAL
545:talk page
484:• Gene93k
464:• Gene93k
444:• Gene93k
37:talk page
547:or in a
501:Relisted
379:contribs
367:unsigned
122:View log
39:or in a
426:(｡◕‿◕｡)
410:(｡◕‿◕｡)
401:WP:RS/N
328:(｡◕‿◕｡)
258:(｡◕‿◕｡)
238:(｡◕‿◕｡)
201:Gbawden
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
520:delete
228:WP:COI
219:WP:A11
215:Delete
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
524:: -->
319:WP:RS
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:talk
16:<
488:talk
468:talk
448:talk
375:talk
296:talk
223:just
205:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
191:TWL
120:– (
55:DGG
490:)
482:.
470:)
462:.
450:)
442:.
381:)
377:•
321:.
298:)
207:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
526:t
486:(
466:(
446:(
373:(
294:(
203:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.