Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Motorsport. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Motorsport|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Motorsport.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

After a deletion discussion it was decided to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports into this page. For the archive of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports/archive.

Motorsport[edit]

Articles for deletion[edit]

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship[edit]

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. Tvx1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first season of this newly established World Championship is due to begin in just under two weeks. Coverage has been limited to motorsports-focused outlets such as Speedweek (example here), Eurosport (example here), and others (Road Racing World, Paddock-GP.com). Deletion is entirely unwarranted, given that this is a World Championship sanctioned by the same governing body that oversees events such as MotoGP, WorldSBK, and others. Mathias327 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be clear, notability isn't inherited from parent topics (WP:NOTINHERITED) nor is it conferred by equivalent topics (WP:OTHERSTUFF). There does seem to be some coverage at the moment, maybe not enough for an article, but there will almost certainly be enough coverage in two weeks' time. Is it worth it to delete or draftify this article and then recreate it in, say, a month? I don't think so. Arguably it doesn't pass notability standards right now, but we ought to be pragmatic here. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting nomination. But disappointing, per 5225C and Mathias327. This is what happens when inexperienced, over-zealous editors 'pirate' what others have written; sometimes it's almost like a competition - who can get it on to WP first. I often see this with racing deaths, contrary to wp notmemorial, when there is nothing/insufficient previously written about the racer, being an also-ran. See Paul Dobbs, Victor Steeman, Billy Redmayne, Dean Berta Viñales.
I'm sure you're all aware that I wrote it, purposely as a section (in February 2024) as nothing had then (yet) happened. I'm equally sure you've read what I wrote here, being toosoon, permastub, crystal - "There is simply no need for a separate article at this premature stage".
Having established that, I disagree that it should be draftified; such action, whilst admitting that some coverage may be available soon, could be regarded as pointy. However the mechanism, it's there, so yes, pragmatism in that redirect (back to) section may be just a retrograde/administrative move (I am an inclusionist).
Keep. Considering what's happening with women's participation in certain sports, and the positive discrimination to enable them, then I think the article is a 'net-positive' to the project, although, considering the nationalities of the participants, will likely be of more-interest to European, non-English first speakers. Considering positive discrimination, I can cite WIR (with which I disagree, being a determined effort to skew the natural balance).--82.13.47.210 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster[edit]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.
    Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.
    it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....
    The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....
    Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.
    Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."

    2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."

    3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."

    4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gough (businessman)[edit]

Barry Gough (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COI article moved to mainspace and skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this businessman and his company, Memento Exclusives, which will also be sent to AfD shortly. In the case of Barry Gough, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For example, the Mirror piece solely interviews the subject, and the Times article is an as-told-to WP:INTERVIEW. Other sources, in-article and in BEFORE search, are similar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memento Exclusives[edit]

Memento Exclusives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COI article moved to mainspace, skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this company and its founder, who is also up at AfD. In the case of Memento Exclusives/Memento Group, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like press releases, WP:INTERVIEWS or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Other coverage is limited to WP:TRADES publications, which do not contribute to notability for companies. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO, and without sufficient WP:SIRS, this article doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the nom. All the independent coverage is not WP:SIGCOV and all the WP:SIGCOV coverage is not independent. Article moved to mainspace in clear contravention of WP:AFC rules for WP:PAID editors. No real claim to notability. Surprising to see an established editor with 4000+ edits and with apparent affiliation with Wikimedia act with such brazen disregard with settled policy. Melmann 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete - "independent" coverage is limited to brief passing mentions ("X teamed up with subject to do Y", focusing on X and Y and not subject, with the sources often being closely related to X in the first place). Possibly worth reporting to WP:ANI due to being a paid article made in obvious violation of relevant policy. I do have to wonder what this "research" is that the user is undertaking that would cause such atrocious paid content to appear in mainspace. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As above. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oh I wanted to AFD this but thanks I saw this after voting from the founders page. A promotional WP:PE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.
    The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Categories[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Motorsport&oldid=1227134081"