Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Formula One pre-season testing (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 Administrative close. No action taken. See Deletion review/Log/2020 June 19 for my reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Formula One pre-season testing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not notable. Consensus among Formula 1 fans is that testing is not accurate because every team runs an individual program. Nothing can be interpreted from the data because teams do not disclose information about their running. The COVID-19 pandemic has invalidated most of the data anyway, since several teams have announced plans for upgrades to their cars. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete see my source analysis on the first AfD, most of the sources on there are crap. There's one good source and a couple of passable sources (in that AfD I used decent to mean passable, but being clearer now so people can't misconstrue me). This testing article adds no value to Wikipedia, the times are completely meaningless, and almost every frequent editor of F1 articles who voted in the last AfD voted delete. Very glad this is up for deletion again, because I'm honestly baffled it survived last time. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Pre-season testing may recieve wide press atention while it is ongoing but this is simply because of the hype that comes with seeing the new cars/drivers being driven/driving for the first. But pre-season testing has no long-term notability (mostly because it doesn't tell you anything). WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS apply here. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Joseph2302 and SSSB. MWright96 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is vexatious as we recently had a similar discussion which was only closed last week and which is still under further discussion at DRV. WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."  and so the nominator should please withdraw. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: just because it can be disruptive, that doesn't mean it is disruptive. This article lacks notability and seems to have been created on the basis that "it happened, so it must be worthy of a Wikipedia article". If testing data was representative of a team's performance, then it might be worthwhile, but the problem is that the teams don't publish details of their testing programmes. It's impossible to interpret the results because we're missing the information we need to make sense of it. On top of that, teams regularly upgrade their cars&mdash;it's not uncommon for teams to show up to the first race with a totally different aerodynamic package to the one they used in testing, upending the apparent running order. In eighteen months the teams will have built entirely new cars and so the question of who did the most laps and who was fastest on which day of testing in 2020 will largely be forgotten. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are many reliable sources about testing. Similar articles in other sports: 2017 ICC Champions Trophy warm-up matches, 2019 Rugby World Cup warm-up matches etc. 94.179.245.243 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. SSSB (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The previous AfD was closed as no consensus six days ago and is still open at DRV. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it clearly doesn't maintain notability past the first race. Performance in testing can be covered on the individual vehicle pages if notable (e.g. mentioning the W10 design controversy on the RP20 page). 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 23:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is written good, but it doesn't pass notability criteria, yes the subject has a lot of media coverage, but it is clearly that not all the things covered in media should be covered in encyclopedia. Results of the testing haven't any competition part in it. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do we have an article so soon after the previous one as it's been a week since the vote ended and to say and to do a vote so soon seems to me of urgencty to get rid of it. HawkAussie (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we're letting this actually run in spite of the incredibly fast renomination for some reason, I think it's correct to ping all previous participants:, , , , , , , . It appears , , , and have already voted in this discussion, but I am including them in this list for the sake of transparency. Also note I have no interest in the outcome apart from my disappointment this was renominated while the previous discussion is still at DRV. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Thank you for the ping. I also have nothing further to add to my original comments on the AfD. Tracland (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No change from the first nom; it's average pre-season testing with no records kept or long-term significance.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop. It's not OK to re-AfD this article when the deletion review hasn't even been closed yet.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well more opinions suggest it should have been relisted and not closed. And that deletion review has reached a clear (stupid) consensus, so close it. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that because the consensus is "stupid", that makes it OK to keep relisting til the article is deleted?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I still have the same opinion, it's well written and contains useful information. Although I don't know why this was relisted since the last discussion was in favor of keeping it. Styyx (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true, it was ended as "no consensus". <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The result was no consensus to delete, with sentiment in the discussion leaning more in favor of keeping." Officially it was ended as "no consensus" but most people wanted to keep it. Why is this "stupid" for you as you said in a reply? Styyx (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The result was no consensus to delete, with sentiment in the discussion leaning more in favor of keeping."- no it isn't, it was no consensus. And everything for why I consider it stupid is on the deletion review, where people have been mis-representing what I said in that AfD. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think you've been mis-represented at DRV? SportingFlyer  T · C  23:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep My !vote rationale has not changed from the first AfD which only concluded 9 days ago. Additionally an editor has asked for a Deletion Review which has not yet concluded. The nominator should read WP:DELAFD and WP:RUSHDELETE. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop per S Marshall, and also Lightburst and Andrew. This is exactly what wikipedia can't cope with: not accepting the outcome of a discussion, asking for a review when there was no basis for a review (since the AfD closing process was clear) and now just a few days after, with no new information to add to the discussion, bringing it up again, calling up some friends. What will come next if this AfD results in keep or no consensus? Several AfD until someone gets his way? STOP. You must accept WP:NOTDEM. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it built on consensus. There was no consensus. Accept is and direct your energies into more productive ways.Rpo.castro (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.