The article PPI Motorsports has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

100% unverified to a single reliable source (and ergo lacking any evidence for meeting Wikipedia:Notability) for 19.41 years!

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten I started this article 19 years ago. Yikes. I disagree with it possibly being deleted, since the team won NASCAR and CART races, but I agree it needs lots of work. Do you have any ideas about what is a reliable resource for racing teams...and a proper formatting so that we can get these dumb "Car # Histories" off the page and make it flow better? (This is a gripe I have with EVERY NASCAR team page; is it so hard to be chronological?) I commented in the talk page that I saw an article that said they left Toyota in 2000, but it's got a Wordpress favicon so I know nothing about it's reliability. Because this team was never a big-name, it is very difficult to find anything on a reliable website about them...especially with them no longer existing. Know anything that can help? -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (P.S., thanks for ending my six-year Wikipedia editing break.  :-P)[reply]

Decided to reply here. Don't be too concerned as to why West was deleted. What happened was one editor was making stub after stub of cricket articles based only on databases without showing why they were notable at all, so the community reviewed the guidelines and decided sports players needed at least some significant coverage in order to qualify for an article. The project has really shifted away from people who bulk create articles, and so this article got caught up in all of it... I agree with you that he's probably notable, but the problem with the deletion discussion was simply that enough sources couldn't be easily found in order to save it. The fact he has an extremely common name helps nothing, but I hope that better explains how we got here... SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some context to the deletion. Since the whole AFD thread affects my mood too much, all I can say is that, hopefully, my draft on his article will stick this time. I found two mentions of him in British newspapers, one of which has detail not readily available online, and MAYBE that'll be enough to make the past deletion a moot point. And if not, I'll pay for a British Newspapers subscription to find more on him and many others contemporaries. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ping me when you're ready and I'll give you an opinion on whether it'd be deleted or not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Flyer: I think it's ready for your opinion. It will still have the usual ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive sources, of course, and that's probably to be expected from a 19th century cricketer. Often times, I've noticed, stats make up the bulk of notability for cricketers of that vintage. I think what'll help this article survive is a new format, a shinier infobox, and those two links from the British Newspaper Archive. The pre-deletion article lacked all of those things. It should look better, though whether it passes the content test is something I guess I'll find out soon enough. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Can you send me the link to it? SportingFlyer T·C 18:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer: Right here: Draft:John West (cricketer, born 1861) I kept the same title as the old article for consistency. I thought I had given you the link already, but I believe it was another editor I sent it to. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer: I hope I didn't open Pandora's Box by trying to remake this article. I'm already feeling a little flustered. I don't understand what I have to do if old newspapers aren't enough. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you're fine, it's just there's an argument about it. I think it'd be kept now if it went to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John West (cricketer, born 1861). Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861).

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NBIO is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NBIO for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

If the new sources are substantially better than the 2022 sources, this draft can be resubmitted, in particular specifying which sources should be analyzed in detail.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John West (cricketer, born 1861) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JustJamie820! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rahmatula786 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks significant coverage about the person.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rahul Kanwat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Star Mississippi 02:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rahul Kanwat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]