Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Formula One season

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus is leaning towards a keep, with the obvious nature of the subject making the article increasingly appropriate as time goes by. While plans for this season are obviously still fairly fluid given the time gap, a valid argument is made that (a) the season is overwhelmingly likely to occur and (b) sufficient sourceable information has been published to warrant a stub article. There's therefore no egregious violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and, providing our editors remain vigilant to badly-sourced speculation, the article does more good than harm existing at this point. ~ mazca talk 13:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Formula One season

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too soon to create the article. Although the Formula 1 WikiProject has created pages up to two years in advance in the past, there is nothing to substantiate this page. Its existence hinges on two references that are specious at best:

  • [www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/04/26/thailand-grand-prix-track-route-confirmed-2015-race/ This] reference describes the creation of the Thai Grand Prix, a race that is expected to join the championship in 2015. However, the content of the article itself makes it quite clear that this is only a plan, and there are no sources that suggest there is a contract between the organisers and the sport's commercial owners to hold the race in the first place.
  • [www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/12/f1-fanatic-roundup-1203/ This] source centres on Honda's supposed plans to enter the sport in 2015, but even the title of the article makes it pretty clear that this is unconfirmed for the time being. Neither Honda nor the team they are said to be joining has announced any plans for them to enter the sport.

Without either of these, there is nothing to substantiate the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 07:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It seems overwhelmingly likely that there will be a 2015 F1 season so I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is a problem for the existence of the topic. There is, however, the question of whether we can say anything now about the 2015 season that is not itself WP:CRYSTALLINE. There are concrete plans [1][2][3] for a Thai Grand Prix so this seems notable already; likewise, the McLaren–Honda tie-up is being reported widely [4][5] albeit more speculatively since neither party has confirmed. Dricherby (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appealing to the fact that an article has been deleted in the past only makes sense if the circumstances now are the substantially the same as they were when the article was deleted. In February, it was apparently WP:TOOSOON to have this article; on 31 December, 2014, it will obviously not be too soon. Therefore, at some point between those two dates, enough information and sources must have accumulated to have a proper article. The question, which your comment does not address at all, is whether that time is now. In particular, note that all five of the sources I pointed out above are more recent than the last speedy-delete. Is there enough now (not two months ago) to start an article that will clearly grow with time, or should we wait a bit longer? Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It appears that the major change is that the new article refers to sources that talk specifically about the 2015 season, whereas the recent deleted articles contained only inferences of the form, "In 2008, Ruritania signed a 10-year contract to hold Grands Prix, so there will be a Ruritanian Grand Prix in 2015." (And the old pages, saying just that 2015 would be the 66th season, are clear deleters.) Dricherby (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You cannot apply a deletion discussion from 2010 to be current for this page - are you going to speedy it next year and the year after because of G4? There is 2015 specific data now available for this article. The previous year (2014) was created 13 months ago at 12:32, 18 March 2012‎ - so it's not as if it's being created way ahead of normal practice . More 2015 data is bound to be generated this year (the teams have to know well in advance what rule changes might happen), now is the ideal time for the article to start.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You created the article and per WP:CSD, you can not remove the speedy deletion tags. As a WP administrator you should know that....William 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not delete the speedy - it had already been deleted (see the logs) - I was sorting out the re-creation of all versions to show the article as was at the original deletion discussion - I just missed forgetting to uncheck the last edit on the undeletion (which had the speedy).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you shouldn't be applying Speedy tags to a page that's already at AfD so I removed them. Dricherby (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You're wrong. Articles that are at AFD can be CSD also if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Sockpuppets, copyright violations, articles previously, any of the criteria....William 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • And WP:G4 manifestly doesn't apply here, because it explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" (which excludes the previously AfD'ed version) and "excludes content... which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion" (which excludes all the others). Dricherby (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The article is referenced 4 times, all articles concerning the Thai Grand Prix. It doesn't constitute an article right now, just a perfect case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. You still don't understand G4 either....William 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • G4 says A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion - the new article is nowhere near identical to the version that was viewed in 2010 - that was a very simple one liner.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references - I would hardly call 4 large. Each has a different style, and I was attempting to show it was not just based on one solitary site. I was going to stop at three and then I saw the Wall Street Journal's piece from Bernie Ecclestone, so you got four.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is bombardment. Not counting the naming of the article, it consists of exactly 31 words. That's 7.75 words for every reference. 4 references all about the same GP, 3 of which are on the same sentence and nothing else about the season. The article is a joke, your taking off the G4 a violation of WP policy, but nothing will be done. There are two sets of rules around here one for administrators and one for everyone else. I've said that around here before. Show some smarts and delete the article....William 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You did not read my reply on my talk page - I did not remove your active speedy - your speedy was actioned by User:INeverCry, who deleted the page. Therefore your speedy was completed. Here's the timestamps again...
                    • Speedy added at 14:50, 30 April 2013‎
                    • Article deleted at 17:46, 30 April 2013 - the speedy was actioned and not deleted - its job had been completed.
                    • Article re-created at 18:52, 30 April 2013 to allow full discussion at AfD.
                  •  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If for no better reason than to avoid having to go through this process again (probably several times) between now and 2015. Also, per Dricherby I think it's overwhelmingly likely that there will be a 2015 F1 season so I don't think there's an issue in terms of WP:CRYSTAL and this is typically how far in advance F1 season articles are created (e.g. 2012 Formula One season was created in February 2010). DH85868993 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We had the same discussion last year, with the 2014 Formula One season. As far as I'm aware, there's roughly around the same amount of imformation about 2015 than there was about 2014. Therefore, why should this be a problem for deletion? Are we going to keep having the same arguements next year when someone creates the 2016 Formula One season? Pch172 (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At the time, the 2014 article was substantiated by details of the new engine formula, which had been decided in August of 2011 and published shortly thereafter. Given the nature and the extent of the changes to the engines, keeping the 2014 article was justified. The 2015 article is not currently justified, as it has no real content to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as TOOSOON. The Rome Grand Prix experience teaches as the relative value of Grands Prix confirmed at such long lead times. The race has yet to be formally confirmed by motor racing authorities. One of the cited references is even titled "as good as confirmed". So if the Thailand sentence is removed there is insufficient content to carry the article. --Falcadore (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Noted, and the offending content removed as being speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where's the speculation? The article said that Thailand is making preparations in the hope of hosting a Grand Prix in 2015. It did not say that Thailand would host a Grand Prix. If it's speculation to say that Thailand is trying to hold a Grand Prix before the contract has been signed, we shouldn't have mentioned that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was standing for election in 2012 because the electorate hadn't confirmed who would actually be president of the USA. Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article implies that the race will be going ahead, given that it has four separate sources to substantiate it and is being used to justify keeping the article afloat. We did have some content on proposed races in the 2013 season article until very recently, but that was all removed because nothing ever came of it. If anything, confirmation of the Thai Grand Prix might be the point where we can reasonably create the 2015 season article, but not before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article didn't state it would go ahead and one could argue that the deletion of that text is being used to justify sinking the article. If you feel that the phrasing sounded too much like "Thailand will host a Grand Prix", why didn't you rephrase it, instead of deleting it? You still haven't explained why mentioning the proposed race is speculative or why it's a bad thing to talk about proposed races. Dricherby (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that if we can get enough information and references we should keep the page, however the way it is now is not enough. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's not forget that it's a page that will naturally grow - Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - but only if the page is created. It's well known that plenty of edit are done by IPs, but only if someone gives them a start page, they can not create a new page directly.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure about this one yet, but on the F1 Wiki, I intend to create this article on July 1, when it is 18 months (and one and a half seasons) away, due to the fact it follows the 2014 season, which will be less than six months away. I suggest deciding upon a date on which the season-after-next's article is created, to stop this issue from recurring every year. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep: per reply to my above comment, and comments below. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's all well and good to say "the page should be kept because the 2014 page was created this many months before the 2014 season", but have you actually looked at the 2015 page? It has no content. To my mind, it's impossible to justify keeping the page around because it is so many months away when there is nothing on the actual page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There's no content on the page because you believe that it's too speculative even to say that Thailand wants to host a race and is making preparations to do so. That is an unreasonably high bar. Dricherby (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I looked but maybe didn't apply brain as well as I should have. Anyway, I'm sure there is something to be written about drivers contracted for 2015 (such as Alonso) and races actually contracted (a good few I assume), so there is room for expansion (but I don't have the time to do that right now). If you could suggest a suitable time in which the creation of the season-after-next should be discussed (this applies to future years), maybe at WT:F1, then this won't be needed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • There can't be a specific date because there's no guarantee that there will or will not be enough material to make a worthwhile article by any particular date. But I'll kick off a discussion about what level of information should be available before articles on future seasons are started. Dricherby (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season&oldid=1140152834"