Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1950s in motorsport

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 keep. deletion arguments are based on a false cdoncept that there is a deadline. There isn't Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950s in motorsport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary division of time, no basis within the sport of sub-division in this manner. Incomplete bullet point in style. Articles appear to be abandoned, no work in five months, and these are articles which need a lot of work as they have been abandoned at a very basic stage. Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep division by decade is common. Looks like it could be useful to view motorsport trends by the decade. --Bxj (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep division by decade is standard practice on wikipedia and in encyclopedias and summaries everywhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMMONSENSE division of time, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, this is the sort of time division used in the real world. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question how long do we keep stubs that no-one appears to want to work on, or bring up to a remotely satisfactory standard? Current levels of content do not reflect the title of the articles. Why keep the articles if they are not going to be advanced? --Falcadore (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Clearly, all four of these articles have been abandoned, and they wouldn't be missed if they were deleted. There's no organization and in each case it's five or six random items about different events lumped under the word "motorsport", with a few sources tossed in to make a good impression. I don't see it as much different than writing an article called "1950s in fashion" and throwing in a few sentences about poodle skirts and argyle sweaters. Moreover, I doubt that anyone will be inspired to work on this simply because they think it's a great title for an article (and it's not a great title). I think that the nomination failed as soon as it described a named decade as an arbitrary division of time, but that notwithstanding, there's no merit in any of these. I think that the author set out to write a comprehensive epic about the past sixty years of auto and motorcycle racing, and then realized that he had better things to do with his time. I think that that author concluded that this was something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but was, on further consideration, just a really bad idea. Maybe other people will agree with that as well. Mandsford 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2010 (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.