justification for deletion

Article have a lack of independent sources and based exclusively both on primary and dependant sources, that way violating at least WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG and was not mostly updated for 4 years (from the time of creation) already. 83.142.111.90 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPD. It looks like there was added some sources to the article, but:
  • any of linked to "endurance-info" (10 sources) are press releases of dependant company ("par lm@endurance-info.com" ... "Communiqué de Presse")
  • only source by Kilbey, Stephen translates the Ligier Automotive's words (“We’re delighted to welcome ...,” said Ligier Automotive President Jacques Nicolet.) that way article subject's dependant.
  • most probably independant sources (6 sources) added are written by only author - the Graham Goodwin, who's usually writes english-languaged articles, is British freelancer, who's "covering the full FIA World Endurance Championship for English language TV stations worldwide", therefore I don't have any issues about his expertise, however, it just repeats press releases from endurance-info with minor changes (his "articles" for me looks like it's just a company-published press releases, but hidden under his name) - that way it does not look neutral as that's only person who ever wrote about article's subject (still not follow WP:GNG)
  • all other sources (19 ones, that was there initially) are probably article subject's generated PDF'ed results with no any WP:PROSE to use as source - are primary (and probably dependant) sources.
No more sources exists in the article. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a fresh look article is mostly a WP:LINKFARM of WP:SELFSOURCE 83.142.111.65 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Can you please tell me why under ostensibly fighting with primary source tags you also returning to the article unsourced WP:OR info, delete template:fv, templates marking WP:OR and delete dating from sectional WP:PRIMARY template as one as delete the text you didn't even check about instead of just fixing ostensibly "bad english" to good one? Did you read carefully explanations to this diff, telling the next: Please read WP:DETAG starting from "Be wary of removing tags related to sourcing issues" and note WP:OVERTAGGING is justified when there's discussion on talk page about these problems persists. / Please avoid any tag-related-removal editions while excessive WP:PRIMARY/WP:NOTABILITY and/or until discussion about notability and orinigal research have place. Thanks." Why it is so hard for you to wait until current discussion about current subject notability to be resolved that you are so aggressively explaining your edits without reading explanations of other editors?83.142.111.2 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because these tags are utterly unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources for things like entries, calendars and results. In fact for this like results they are the best sources as these organisations are the ones responsible of crediting results. Also keep in mind that secondary≠independent. Moreover, the OR you complain just doesn't exist. The content in question is properly supported by sources. Lastly, you were the one replacing a good section of prose written in proper English by one that is hardly understandable. I merely reinstated the correct text. You've told all of this repeatedly. You're edits are very disruptive, hence you've been blocked again. Please stop it. Tvx1 18:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of independent source needed tags

Under my interpretation of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:INDEPENDENT ("Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy"). An independent source needed tag is not needed for citations 2 and 3 as they are verifiable. Further, a citation needed tag is not necessary at the bottom of the Calendar section given the fact citations 2 and 3 fully explain the calendar. If you disagree with me on this, let me know and I don't mind discussing this further or bringing this issue to a noticeboard.

I will agree with you that the article overall needs more secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, but having all these extra tags for no reason is not necessary. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I won't argue that until global improvement tags are still there. 83.142.111.65 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

2 right columns of the table at 2020 Ligier European Series#Entry list is an WP:OR as is not just took form the sources but is synthesis based on some number of separate wP:PRIMARY provided there. I think it have to be deleted.

What any more fresh ideas about that you have? 83.142.111.2 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Ligier_European_Series
No tags for this post.