Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Formula One season (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is to soon to have this article already published. It was created out of a habit that these articles for two seasons away in the future are always created around this time. While that is true, it has never been proven that the articles and the readers have clearly benefitted from being created this early. While there is a bit of content unique to 2017, it is not actually that much and insufficient to warrant this article to be existing already. The recentmost predecessor, 2016 Formula One season was created in July 2014 (actually it had been created and deleted a couple of times before that) and for the first six months of its existence it was only subjected to addition of unsourced information, vandalism and edit warring. Not just a bit of that, it was the only thing. See the articles history. Only towards the end of 2014/beginning of 2015 did considerable information for 2016 become available and the article could be expanded considerably. We are in no rush whatsoever to publish things and we can easily wait quite some time before putting this article up live. Tvx1 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is only too soon if there is no sourcing. But there is, particularly about proposed rule changes, so there isn't a problem. Vandalism or addition of unsourced information is not a valid reason to delete. 217.36.84.105 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no such guideline or policy that states that it is no to soon to have an article if any sources about it are available. Whether a subject 'already) merits an encyclopedia article is determined by the notability guidelines. Don't make the mistake that we should include something simply because it has been mentioned in sources. Tvx1 16:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I wouldn't normally support it, but it has sources, plus the regulation changes for the 2017 season are notable and will only receive more coverage and discussion in the near future. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regulation changes which are only speculated and not confirmed at all. And that they will only receive more coverage and discussion in the near future is just your speculation. It might as we'll remain silent about the subject for a few months. That's not justification for having the article right now. We might as well delete the article and recreate it in a month or six/seven if we have more definite rule changes to report on. Tvx1 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters that it's speculated as it's received significant coverage. It's not a BLP, so when reliable sources speculate strongly about something, it can be notable. (I'm not sure if you're serious about it being only my speculation that there will be more coverage of these regulation changes... are you really implying there might be NO such coverage? This will just disappear? Nobody will talk about these rules either being implemented or abandoned? OK...) Additionally, drivers have confirmed participation in this event. Having an article on a sports event/season two years out seems perfect suitables when entries have been confirmed and there is coverage. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Formula management seems to change their mind in a wimp regarding rules. They raised the idea after a disappointingly boring . But since then we had an eventful and really exciting . Another such race and they might decide that no drastic rule changes are needed after all. So yes you are speculating a bit there. And regarding the entries, that's actually one of the main motivations of my nomination. Save for one new constructor entry, no entries have actually been confirmed yet, just three drivers signing a long term contract a while ago. Tvx1 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, your argument against referenced speculation (actually, it's noting that the Formula One Strategy Group agreed to these proposals. This is something that has actually happened and is not speculation at all) is quite simply unreferenced speculation? Twirlypen (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The strategy group did not agree to these proposals, they made them. The FIA are the ones who have to agree with them. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even reach the FIA if all 6 teams in the Strategy Group don't agree to them. Remember the Manor rule allowing them to use the 2014 car in 2014 trim that got shelved simply because the first team in the group to vote, Force India, voted no? It has to be unanimous to even reach the WMSC. Twirlypen (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even then they can easily be rejected by the WMSC. Moreover, Formula One people tend to change their opinion very quickly. Earlier this season the teams unanimously agreed with an extra unpenalized power unit to be used on top of the four they could use already through the Strategy group and one week later they changed their mind and drivers started getting penalties for using fifth power unit components. Tvx1 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tend to" =/ "definately will". Again, the readers are not misled. Nothing is stated that the changes will or will not happen, only that they have been agreed upon and proposed by the Strategy Group. Simple reading comprehension. "An initial series of changes have been put forward by Formula One Strategy Group but have yet to be accepted by the FIA, including: [...]" 99% of the time, the best way to interpret content is to read it one word at a time and not look too far into "secret meanings". It is sourced that these proposals have been put forth and written explicitly in a manner that doesn't imply they are anything more than just that: proposals. If you think readers will misinterpret that as the changes will definately occur, then you are simply devaluing and insulting the reader's intelligence. If/when a subsequent source comes along stating that the FIA has rejected/accepted the proposals, we can just, you know, CHANGE it. You're acting like what's written now is written in stone when. In fact, your only argument against reputably sourced material is basically "The FIA tends to reject some proposals, so I, without sources whatsoever regarding their decision on the new proposals, declare that they will probably reject them and therefore this should be eliminated". If that's not pure speculation, thinking the FIA will do something based off of past tendencies and using this judgement to attempt to influence sourced content that's not misleading, then I don't know what is. Also, to touch on what you said earlier to another editor in what seemed like a condescending manner, this isn't the place to dispute content. Twirlypen (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I would disagree, traditionally at WP:F1 it is usually two seasons ahead we have it, so now it's 2015, the 2017 article should be up. The reason for this is we know regulations and contracts for this year, which can therefore be sourced/referenced which qualifies for an article. The only issue I have with this article (and previous season articles) is the list of races, where it says "list of races contracted for 2016, but not for 2017". Also the information about the GPoA I would prefer off the list also, because really it isn't happening, users talk about the contract being signed, yes that's fair enough, but the race hasn't happened, therefore the contract has been broken and no longer is relevant, but others will argue that. CDRL102 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May I also comment, a pet hate of mine is when a user tries to speedy delete an article and it fails so they nominate it for deletion. There was a reason it wasn't speedy deleted, because it is a good article. CDRL102 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss changes to the article's content. You should do that on its talk page. And a decline to speedy delete is not an endorsement of it being a good article. It just declared that it does not meet the strict criterium under which it was created. I will also note that the person who declined the speedy delete even suggested going to AfD. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell from the speedy deletion discussion that the person that suggested it didn't mean for it to be taken literally. Your only argument on this, as outlined in the description you wrote, is basically "a lot of people vandalised the 2016 article and I didn't like having to revert it, plus there wasn't a lot of new information for the first six months or so. Therefore, I speculate it will happen again." Again, no matter how much you say otherwise, VANDALISM AND UNSOURCED ADDITIONS ARE NOT CRITERIA FOR DELETION! Drop the stick already. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep – It is within the timeframe of season creation articles with the past five season articles, along with that there is unique and referencable information pertaining directly to that season, as per above. This nominator appears to have a grudge against its existence despite these referencable facts, as it's the same editor that nominated it for speedy deletion and was rejected, simply because they cannot be bothered to revert inevitable vandalism. However, AfD is clearly not the avenue for article protection against vandalism, and I'm finding the continuous attempts to get the article deleted by a lone editor to be a bit much. Twirlypen (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No grudge at all. Just a genuine good faith concern that there is not benefit at all of having this article already instead of say at the start of 2017 when we'll likely have much more specific information for it. I still like to see any argument how for instance benefitted from being created in July 2014 instead of at least six months later. No harrassement by any means. Please comment on the content and not on the nominator/contributors in an AfD. There are other avenues for that. Tvx1 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons made during the speedy deletion discussion. You might think that the facts are trivial, but they are unique to the season and precedence has held that this is enough to warrant an article creation - especially when everything is properly sourced. The tendency that new articles are subject to vandalism and/or don't get updated or have edits made every day isn't particularly relevant to the criteria for article deletion. As the article is written right now, there's nothing really much wrong with it. The Strategy Group DID agree to the proposals to bring forward to the FIA. This can be and is cited. The FIA HAS opened a tender for new tyre suppliers and it can be sourced that there are bids from two companies, which will be selected at the next WMSC meeting in Paris on 30 September. Nothing in the article is written in a manner that expicitly states or implies that these changes are definately going to happen, so no one is being misled. We don't have to wait for the season to be on the doorstep to create an article about it. See 2028 Summer Olympics. Twirlypen (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the aforementioned reasons. There seems to have been an attitude among the WikiProject of late that future articles should only be created on a set date, rather than based on the merits of available sources. It seems to be a by-product of the 2013 season, where the regulations were deliberately kept stable ahead of the major changes in 2014. In this case, the proposed regulation changes for 2017 are substantial enough to justify the article's creation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to be just as much an argument for deletion as one for keeping. The most important rationale for creating and keeping is :"we always create them this time of the year" (i.e. set date), instead of the quality and the quantity of the article. Tvx1 12:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with the quality? Nothing is unsourced or speculated. And as far as I can find, article size doesn't dictate whether a topic is deserving of an article. The sources are reliable, the content is not misleading. This is, again, no different than the aforementioned 2028 Olympic article stating that cities have put in bids to host with sources. Twirlypen (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is there is just no that much 2017 specific content in there. A mere three drivers, a list of contracted races (which could make for some years to come based on the contracts) and some speculated rules changes. Not that much to warrant a standalone article. It could easily be discussed at Formula One. Wait a minute.....it is discussed there. Tvx1 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is mentioned in that section over the course of one entire paragraph. Still a weak argument against the deletion of expanded information with sourced material. It's not like it's just a placecard for the season like it was back in 2010 or 2013. With that logic, let's just delete all mentions of Jules Bianchi dying outside of his own article then, since apparently information is only allowed to be mentioned in one article and one article only. The content is clearly sufficient for it's own article, as determined by an administrator when the draft went through the AfC process. Its existence doesn't hamper, detract, or hinder the overall project at all as stated by other contributors in this discussion. Anyway, it's clear we've both made our opinions known. We'll see how another administrator feels once this frivolous submission gets to the top of the queue. Twirlypen (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Who has said that information can never be included in more than one article? That's just nonsense. Tvx1 08:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You did, literally one comment before this. "Not that much to warrant a standalone article. It could easily be discussed at Formula One. Wait a minute.....it is discussed there." And you're right, it is nonsense. Twirlypen (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Including the 2010 discussion from five years ago is completely meaningless. That argument has absolutely nothing to do with this one and continuous tagging of the article only further serves to show that you're heading down the option B path instead of option C. Twirlypen (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this accusation pertains to. Again, please don't discuss contributors here. Tvx1 08:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Including a discussion that is completely irrelevant to this one isn't discussing a contributor, it's pointing out a sly attempt at canvassing, as anyone outside of the project is going to see that and assume it's a true second attempt deleting an article when in fact the two discussions are five years apart and are completely unrelated to each other. Twirlypen (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Twirlypen, it's a policy to include the previous deletion for an article in a box on top of an AfD. It's not something you can choose to do. In fact the box is added automatically when the AfD is generated. And yes your WP:PONY accusation was very much a case of discussing the contributor. Tvx1 16:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I originally closed this as Keep but the nom disagreed so have reopened it. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The line A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours) is advisory, it does not say must. Also Snowball clause could be called, only the nominator has said delete, all other votes are for keep or speedy keep. CDRL102 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only 50 or so hours have elapsed since nomination. Only five users have weighed in their opinion. No that much in both cases. Just let this run its course. There's no rush. Tvx1 23:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - As seen here (Alexandra Quinn) One AFD closer closed one as Keep - Despite the outcome being fucking obvious it was sent to DRV because it was closed 17 hours earlier, After a discussion it was then reopened/relisted so even If I said "nope it's staying closed" TVX would've gone to DRV and they would've said reopen/relist anyway, Ofcourse had DRV not been a soft and quite honestly a fucking useless board I would've said nope but there we go. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What a complete waste of resources. No wonder everything is backlogged on Wikipedia. Oh well, four-and-a-half more days of this utter nonsense it is. Twirlypen (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude I actually close AFDs earlier then normal so I'd say I actually reduce the backlog, With all respect I'm not being sent to DRV where after a weeks discussion the AFD gets relisted for another week!, As much as I disagree with this bollocks I'd rather reopen than go through DRV which drags on for alot longer!. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I in no way meant to implicate that the fault was yours, my friend! As you can see by my comments, I find this to be equally ridiculous. I understand that you've got to follow the rules. I just wish nominator would simply drop it and get over it already. Twirlypen (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh damn sorry I thought you were unhappy with me sorry, Considering it's an obvious Keep I really don't know why the nom wanted to follow procedure as whether it's closed now or days later it's gonna be a keep!, Unfortunately my friend you get some editors like myself who follow WP:IAR and others who have to follow word by word of every policy here!, Just the way it goes unfortunately. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In an AfD there's no need to drop it and get over it, because there is a default length after it will end anyway. And besides, in the meantime someone one has stated it should be removed from article namespace. That's why an AfD should be allowed to run its course. To allow as many people as possible to weigh in their opinion. I really wish that some people wouldn't always be in such a rush. Tvx1 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I accepted this at AFC because it did have references and had some unique content that was not a duplicate of other articles. I did consider the 2010 AFD but that was really irrelevant, being so old.  The other season articles were also created more than 17 months before the start, and 17 months is not really that long, so it now looks to be the time to ahve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Userspace until this is encyclopedically relevant. "Referenced" speculation is still just speculation. See WP:NOT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing a Strategy Group agreement, a tyre tender that has already been offered, bids on said offer that have already been submitted, and event contracts that have already been signed isn't speculation. These things have all already happened. I kindly suggest you read the article before you comment on it. Under this argument, any article whose subject is beyond today's date should be deleted/moved to userspace - including the 2016 article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.