Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula One World Championship


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

2019 FIA Formula One World Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Way to soon. I can see no difference with the rationales presented for deleting the 2020 season article. No specific content for 2019 has been published (e.g. new tracks or new driver contracts starting in 2019). This is just as much listing the multiple year contracts signed for an earlier season as the 2020 article is. Tvx1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: there is a significant difference between the 2018 and 2019 articles&mdash;namely that five of the top six drivers (Ricciardo, Verstappen, Räikkönen, Bottas and Hamilton) are out of contract at the end of 2018 and it has been public knowledge that some of the top teams have been sounding out those drivers. On top of that, Carlos Sainz's one-year deal with Renault will expire, and Red Bull do not have an engine deal in place beyond 2018. The encyclopaedic value of the article is not so much in what is confirmed, but in what is unresolved (as opposed to there being no information available). A lot of the critical analysis I have seen (such as this) supports this. We have a section in the list of races that notes which events are contracted for 2018 but not for 2019, so I think a section on drivers and teams who are free agents in 2019 (for want of a better term) is not only justified, but adds to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have updated the article with details of drivers out of contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are genuinely suggesting now that we create and keep an article because of an "important" lack of verifiable information?? That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever read. What is so special about this situation? A Mercedes and Ferrari spot being possibly available isn't even unique for 2019. Bottas and Räikkönen had one-year contracts for 2017 as well, so that situation exist for the 2018 season as well. In fact, prior to Vettel extending his contract this summer, no 2018 Ferrari spot was filled. And that article wasn't created until December when some new 2018 information was published (the return of the French GP). We should create this article when new 2019 driver and/or race contracts are being announced. At this moment there is no difference between the 2019 and the 2020 articles. Both exist solely to tabulate the remain years on multiple-year contracts. Information which is easily conveyed in the individual articles. The last time the 2018 article was deleted, you supported the deletion and stated that . Well, I don't see any significant new information for 2019 yet. So you should practice what you preach. And by the way, Verstappen's contract is NOT running out at the end of 2018.Tvx1 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: First of all, it is not a lack of verifiable information. We can verify that those drivers' contracts expire at the end of 2018 and thus there is currently a change for 2019. To claim so otherwise is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, removing reliable, well-sourced content to strengthen the case for an AfD is pretty under-handed. Secondly, why am I obligated to support this deletion simply because I supported a previous one? Why am I not allowed to change my mind? Why am I not allowed to assess each individual AfD on its merits and make a decision accordingly? Finally, in your AfD for the 2020 article, you said "One article on the upcoming season is already quite a task to manage. Two is already over the limit." which sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How quaint. Just as you claim I don't like it, your position can summarized as WP:ILIKEIT. Your just perceiving the number of out of contract drivers as being "sensational" when in fact is just something that happens nearly every year. Prior to this summer Vettel, Räikkönen, Bottas, Pérez, Vandoorne, Alonso, Palmer, Massa, Stroll, Ericsson, Wehrlein and Kvyat were all without contracts. The 2019 situation is hardly unique as you can see. And if that wasn't enough you're requesting to keep this based on your speculation that there will be a "similarly sensational" set of driver changes will take place, while for all I know they (or at least most of them) might just stay put. The 2018 article was deleted in late august 2018 for the exact same reasons as everyone (including you) wants the 2020 article deleted and this one was nominated. There is no significant new 2019 information known yet and therefore I cannot see how the many delete rationales presented in the 2020 AFD'd don't apply here. And just because content is well sourced it isn't automatically relevant to the subject. That's why I removed. I'd say that inventing new, never before used tables in a misguided attempt to keep this article is much more of an underhand tactic.Tvx1 09:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep We usually create season articles about ~18 months in advance, and this is 18 months beforehand. Also per the uncertainty of many drivers is in itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we create season articles when verifiable new information for that specific season is available. The 2018 article was created . Or more or less 12 months before the the start of the year 2018.Tvx1 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is exactly the same case as for the 2020 season article. Similarly there is no apparent policy-based reason for not keeping the article, and that is what is required for a deletion request to succeed. WP:TOOSOON has been mentioned, but that is an essay relying on this policy-based statement: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." As it is clear that this article satisfies the policy on notability, specifically from WP:GNG that it has gained sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is no apparent justification for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet there is no evidence of this significant coverage in reliable sources. As of yet, no new driver contract, new race contract or rule change for the 2019 championship had been announced. A passing mention of the year in an article discusding a driver or a team or a different season is not the same as significant coverage. In fact, when you click on the find sources button on top of this AFD. Barely 8 links are produced, none of which contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. So if you want your policy or guideline that is failed here, it's WP:Notability. Judging by your ridiculous claim there is significant coverage of this subject, it's safe to say that you did not bother to do even a quick search for sources before leaving your comment here.Tvx1 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are currently 25 reliable sources used to support the driver and Grand Prix data in the article. And the search mentioned (even though it only looks for exact matches on on the complete article title, and not for other aspects of the 2019 season) turns up 8 hits. So clearly, the event is already notable per WP:GNG. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of these 25 uses reliable sources contains significant coverage of new information relating to the 2019 season. They just mention multiple-year contracts which are extrapolated to be also valid for this article. As I have explained before, passing mentions do not have any value in determining notability. And as I have also previously explained before, those 8 search hits do NOT contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. I'm beginning to think you do not understand our notability guidelines. There is literally no source right now which covers anything significant new thing for the 2019 championship.Tvx1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG defines significant coverage as coverage that addresses "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There is no requirement for the article to cover any "significant new thing". The 25 reliable sources used certainly provide significant coverage addressing the topic directly without needing original research and add up to provide the necessary significant coverage. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, I've changed my mind following the deletion of the 2020 article that significant coverage per WP:GNG does not mean a passing mention in 25 sources, but detailed coverage in each of a few sources, and this article does not conform to that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: there is an almost identical AfD being discussed here for the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the outcome of one AfD should not affect the outcome of another. Reading the comments of both AfDs, it is clear (so far) that the community thinks it is WP:TOOSOON for the 2020 article, but not for 2019. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bit early to judge the "community"'s opinion just not even 24 hours after this AFD was launched, don't you think. There is a reason AFD's have a minimum running time of 7 days, you know.Tvx1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment no !vote, by the standard application of WP:TOOSOON it's probably a few months too soon, but deleting it seems overkill. Could this be moved to draft space until early 2018? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s certainly worth considering.Tvx1 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Kante4 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Most of the opposition to this article stems from one editor's statement that managing two articles for future championships is difficult. At last count, I was managing eight articles for future championships (including this one) without a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You call one of them being put under full protection twice not a problem?Tvx1 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a problem because the issue was contextual. It had to do with the validity of a source, with a deliberately-disruptive editor thrown in for good measure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have had season articles about this event since 1950, and as long as there is some unique content to include, which there is, there seems no reason to delete this specifically because it has been created a bit early. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And what unique content would you be talking about??Tvx1 20:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - In the grand scheme of things the 2019 season is not actually that far away, I personally don't think it can qualify as WP:TOOSOON as contracts and signings will be planned months and years in advance. Deleting the article at this point would be pointless as by the beginning of 2018 there will already be news coming for plans for the 2019 season.Theprussian (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet the information doesn't exist now. And the reality is that new 2019 contracts are most likely only to be signed twelve months from now. Right now they are singing up for 2018, not 2019. In fact right now, this article doesn't even pass the WP:GNG. It can always be moved to a draft and be republished as an article when specific information for 2019 becomes available.Tvx1 16:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's the season after next, which is not TOOSOON to have the article. There are drivers that have contracts for 2019 already. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – I am an editor from huwiki, I only have a few edits here on enwiki but I am one of the main contributors to F1 articles in huwiki. I am also the one who started the brother page of the 2019 season in Hungarian at the end of September. Why do I think it should be kept? The article is already started. It is (or will be in a few months) without doubt notable, I think we can all agree on that. So if it is already started, why bother deleting it, just to create it like 3 months later again? It does not take up space or anything. There are millions of pages on enwiki, it does no harm if this one sole page stays here for 2-3 more months with this "little" content. When 2018 starts, new contracts will be announced for 2019, tracks and race calendar will be confirmed, new regulations will be announced. Also, if you think this article is too soon, what about 2030 FIFA World Cup? This article will slowly get into focus, and already has verifiable information, like 2 contracted top-drivers, or tracks who are already under contract. It just does not make sense to delete it. It is also easier to add pieces of confirmed information one by one to an existing article then to collect all of them like a year later. People might already be interested in 2019, they come here and see the drivers who are already contracted, the tracks, the new rules and so on. If you delete it, it is only a matter of time than you have to make it again. Then why bother? --XXLVenom999 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2017 (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.