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 delete all. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bahrain GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is abandoned, four year old sports event, and one supporting another larger event, no work in two years, and nothing in the article that cannot be gleaned from seasons summary 2007 GP2 Series season. Falcadore (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above, all these articles are is essentially just a filled out infobox:

2007 Monaco GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007 Spanish GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 Valencian GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 British GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 European GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 French GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 German GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Hungarian GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Italian GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Monaco GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Spanish GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Turkish GP2 round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Falcadore (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is obvious that there is a need to delete all 2006-2008 GP2 reports. Also 2008 Belgian GP2 round has copyright violation. Cybervoron (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment - should we package in all the GP2 reports then? --Falcadore (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, other reports are referenced, contain classification and more of them have race descriptions. They do not consist only of one line and the templates. Cybervoron (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you mentioned I meant. --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this misunderstanding. Yes, we should package in all 2006-08 GP2 reports. Cybervoron (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, well just looking on the surface, each one of these nominated articles convey virtual no information to the reader. Most of them simply say "This was X race out of X. Held at XXX track. Driver X won", which is already mentioned on the article for the series. As they are, the pages are useless, and I would support deleting them all.

The bigger issue here is whether GP2 races are notable enough to warrant an article for each race. Although newer articles may be more complete, I don't see why we should delete some and keep others - if we do ultimately someone will recreate them on the basis newer ones exist. Really whether or not GP2 races are notable enough is the real question. QueenCake (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment, while it is A bigger issue, it is not THIS issue. This is about deleting abandoned, unreferenced, incomplete articles. Article which have been written up and referenced represent a completely different subject, dispite the similarity of content matter. Needs a separate discussion than this one. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GP2 races aren't relevant enough for an article each. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of whether the articles in question could be notable (and I think they could), as they stand the articles fail to demonstrate any notability. Unless someone adds in content and sources which demonstrate that the topic is notable, the articles hold very little value. AlexJ (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (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.