- 2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
See also, articles about races for similar cases has been successfully deleted or merged before amongst numerous others I can find.
I nominated this as most races of feeder series for young drivers, with the exception of the Macau Grand Prix, are not notable enough for individual articles, thus failing WP:GNG, WP:SIGNIFICANCE and WP:EVENTCRIT. The irony of that nomination and the sucessful deletion of SWC articles is that the latter is a top tier series for production motorcycles. The nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round covered this rationale well. Rather than reword this as my own, I will copy and paste it here…
"This is a collection of articles that serve as race reports for the Formula Regional European Championship. For context, this is a junior motorsport competition at the Formula 3 level for young drivers in Europe. The series itself is notable and that is not what I am disputing. However, these articles are not. While the season may receive significant coverage, each event unambiguously does not. All of these completely fail basic content policies: the only coverage I can find is from Formula Scout, a specialty source which I do not believe can be used to prove notability given its obscurity and extremely limited scope. It is routine coverage and does not provide any greater analysis other than a recount of the basic going-ons of each round (i.e. the results). Other sources used are primary, typically results tables. In fact, the articles consist almost exclusively of results, with negligible prose. There is no prospect of expansion for these articles because such little coverage exists. Simply because the series is notable does not mean each individual race warrants its own article: notability is not inherited. Not every open-wheel series receives attention requiring F1-style coverage. Per WP:GNG, WP:NOSTATS, and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, these should all be deleted."
I will now add my own point - Unneeded WP:CFORK of respective seasons that is solely useful to the tiniest minorities of dedicated fans. WP:SIGCOV have always been mediocre outside of dedicated motorsport magazines. Sources is over-reliant on WP:PRIMARY. One of the source mentioned in the nomination, Formula Scout, is a hobbyist site, also dubious at best as mentioned above. Lastly, do poor spectator attendances at these races warrant a Wikipedia article?
I do not object to a redirect, but Wikipedia is not a repository of sports stats.
This received a keep verdict because number of keep votes mattered the most to Wikipedia rather than the notability issues of the article. Summaries are a duplication of round-by-round summaries found in seasonal articles.
What kind of message does this keep verdict send? It’s okay for an unsourced article or one with WP:PRIMARY to be given a keep verdict because of a number of keep votes.
If we have to go back to 2004 as one editor said, then I will. I focused this nomination on this year’s season to kill it off, then they will be next.
If we are to allow them to be kept, in future AfD nominations, this will be uses as an indicator for notability as I have done already. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). The consensus was correctly interpreted; there was no support for deletion beyond the nominator, and this is not AfD round 2. Furthermore, the appellant brought this to Deletion Review before contacting the closer, contrary to the recommended steps above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is the asserted policy-based problem with or error in the discussion? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse in the absence of any articulated discussion or consensus-assessment issues. DRV is not just because someone doesn't like the consensus, especially on editorial arguments like CFORK or notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions - 1. How many articles is the appellant asking to include in this Deletion Review? There appear to be 11 articles listed in the AFD. Are they all in the scope of this DRV? 2. What if any error does the appellant say was made by the closer? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Involved, I voted keep) It's very disappointing that this was started and @SpacedFarmer hasn't responded to any of the comments. This feels pretty strongly like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT DRV and a failure of WP:DRVPURPOSE from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
