Talk:Keyed-Up Motorsports

NASCAR Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject NASCAR, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to NASCAR. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.NASCARWikipedia:WikiProject NASCARTemplate:WikiProject NASCARNASCAR articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Argh[edit]

This is a NASCAR Sprint Cup team. The fact that this team will compete in NASCAR's top series next season is enough to make this article relevant. Deleting this article is a crime against the team, their sponsors, and their driver. It has sufficient citations for the information it has and will recieve more as time progresses. If this article is deleted, it will be the only Sprint Cup team without an artcle on the List of NASCAR teams page. This is, once again, unfair to Keyed-Up Motorsports as a whole. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!

The state of the article[edit]

This article has almost no content, except a small intro about the team and then quite a lot of stuff about the team not having sponsorship and looking for it and the section titled Search for sponsorship reads like an ad or solicitation. Reverting my templating (and spelling error fixing) and saying that those are not needed is an opinion you are entitled to, but this article really shouldn't exist if there is nothing else to say about this subject and the concerns I raised were legit. You raise the point here on the talk page that this team should have a page on Wikipedia because all the other teams in the race have one, however fairness has nothing to do with if a team should have an article on Wikipedia or not, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NMO and WP:GOODARG. Those are all arguements that would work in a deletion discussion, if the article was up for deletion. It requires establishment of notability, non-primary sources and removal or rewrite of the talk about sponsorship that make most of the article read like an ad to make it stop being a candidate for deletion. Valar (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points you make are NOT legit. Notability was established over a month ago. It will attempt to race in the 2010 Daytona 500. I don't know how much you know about NASCAR, but the Daytona 500 is a very important race. As for having no cotent, the team has not raced yet for it will debut in Daytona. It has no sponsors and so that is all their is not say about it until it finds some or when it begins racing. I also have sufficient citations for all the information was found on the two links I have at the bottom. All you have to do is merely click on them and check. Also, notice how I have written on your talk page instead of answering you on KUM's discussion page. This is because I do not want you vandalizing it with false accusations a month before the team's debut. It is a terrible thing that a Sprint Cup team has to face such cruelty as to saying it does not belong in on Wikipedia. All Sprint Cup teams should be on Wikipedia just for being a Sprint Cup team. The fact that you do not feel that competing at the top level of American racing is not notable is irrelevent. If you feel the need to reply to me, please write on my talk page. I would prefer, however, that you simply leave this alone and put it behind you. Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia and I send you my warmest regards.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to the article talk page, as that's where it belongs. I can see that this is an important subject to you and I admit I don't know anything about NASCAR, however, I do know a fair bit about policies on Wikipedia. You may have stopped the speedy deletion by adding the link to the press release, however, it is not a valid source since it's a first party, self serving source and thus does not abide by WP:VERIFY and does not help to establish notability per general notability guidelines, see WP:GNG. You may still use the press release as a source, but not the sole source you base the article on, see WP:SELFPUB. Self-published sources should not be used to establish notability, so even if you say they are going to race in the Daytona 500 and they say they are doing so as well, can you cite a reputable 3rd party that can verify that? As I said in my first comment, a team is not entitled to be in Wikipedia just because every other team is on Wikipedia and I'm pretty sure that if we'd look there would be similar problems some of those articles. You yourself acknowledge that there is not much to say about the team except that it has no sponsors (nor driver or other team positions filled) so surely you must see why I see problems with this article. Calling my comments vandalism and preferring to keep the articles discussion out of the articles talk page shows lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I recommend you read up on the policies I linked, as well as the rest of the policies that editors are expected to follow. I also give you my warmest regards, Valar (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ignoring my request. I was trying to be civil but since you refuse to let honor be a part of your Wikipedia code I find it difficult not to get angry. I apologize if I stepped on your toes when I pointed out your incompetence in this field. Now, I will try to be as polite as possible as I explain this situation. This article was assigned to me by Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR (perhaps you missed our logo at the top of this page?) in preparation for the team's debut next month. We are simply trying to prepare ourselves for the new season and, since information was available, we began early. Can you fault us for that? Information will soon come flowing in and it will be added to the article with proper citations. By the way, I am aware of the Wikipedia policies so waving them around in my face to cover your ignorance is greatly unappreciated. I ask that you please put this all behind you for you are damaging our efforts to make NASCAR articles better. If you beleive that NASCAR articles are poorly cited and biased, either ignore them and let us do our work fixing that problem or join the WikiProject and fix them yourself!--Johncoracing48 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter if the the article was assigned to you by a project or not, it still has to fullfill the the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, that is, notability, and at the moment it does not do that without citing reputable 3rd party sources. My knowledge of NASCAR has nothing to do with anything because what is at fault here is adhering to the basic principles of Wikipedia and those can be applied no matter what the subject is. It's not like I'm in a revert war or something over the content of the article, it's just a template that you should leave on there until the article is fixed. Valar (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more sources that are both 3rd party. It accounts for everything on the article. As I have said countless times before, notability has been confirmed for months! The two citations I added should give you nothing else to complain about. Are you happy now?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You've now confirmed the notability of the article with sources that are valid as per Wikipedia policies. Your previous notability confirmation was not valid, as I've previously told you, since it did not cite reputable 3rd party sources. The only remaining complaint I have about the article now is the lack of content, but you could stubify it and remove the tag until they have complete a race and you thus have more material on them. I'll remove the notability and citation tags now. Valar (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car #90 History[edit]

This article is about the race team Keyed-Up not just the 90 car so I felt it important to make a Car #90 History section just like the RCR or Hendrick articles. After I did that it didn't make sense to have sub sections for "sponsorship" and "racing" which are not consistent with RCR, etc. In addition, they didn't really have enough info to support an entire section Hutcher (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The #90 is all of Keyed-Up Motorsports. It is a new team this year and, until they start another team, the #90 is all that makes up Keyed-Up Motorsports. It is not fitting to fashion this article like RCR's because RCR has been around in multiple series with multiple teams for over 40 years. As for info, all the current info available is in it. If you find new info, please add it. Just don't model it after a highly successful and established team's article because Keyed-Up is not at that level yet.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keyed-Up Motorsports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]