Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Super Start Batteries 400


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Super Start Batteries 400

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed.

Kaisertalk (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

'''Speedy Keep. '''Changing nomination to a speedy keep based on the fixes by. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, mostly procedural This is now a redirect (and it was a double redirect). I'm not sure how much you know about NASCAR, but the race was only confirmed this week (they have been setting their schedule in chunks post-pandemic). Also, the race is less than two weeks away, so it's not unreasonable. Raymie (t • c) 08:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 08:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I reverted the redirect because it removed the AfD notice from the page. Well within the WikiProject NASCAR notability scope, and there's already a keep rationale in the deletion nomination. AfD is not a fancy tag.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems a sufficiently likely and well sourced future event to pass WP:CRYSTAL. If parts are improperly written as if it had already occurred, that is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and would probably have taken less effort to fix than just listing the AfD did. AfD is not cleanup. No valid reason for deletion mentioned, no WP:BEFORE search mentioned in the nom statement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Event is scheduled and press exists, passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Create a redirect to a a non date specific article. Or attempt a WP:HEY and change it into an upcoming event with article written in future tense, and starting grid / finishing board cleared.Kaisertalk (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have any notability concerns about the article? Because if not, it really should not be an AfD matter.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 06:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No concerns about notability, as noted in my comment above WP:GNG. Also, articles going through WP:XFD and the WP:AFDMERGE can do so for reasons beyond WP:GNG. You would agree that an article for a future date, written as if it has been completed, is misleading to say the least. But, I defer to the WP:AFD process and am respectful of the decision by that process. Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have participated in over 500 Articles for Deletion discussions and cannot off the top of my head remember one that was not about notability. Your rationale for this (and others) does not seem to fit any of the descriptors is Introduction to deletion process and actually seems to fit more in the Introduction to deletion process, specifically the first bullet point: "Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Please clarify if I am missing something, but it seems like this batch of NASCAR-related AfDs really just should've been cleanup tags.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . Well, I have not participated in over 500 Articles for Deletion discussions, so you have this one. :) But, to say that off the top of the head, you are unable to think of one that was not about notability, might speak about frequency bias. Per the same link that you point out, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_use_the_deletion_process? of the four reasons mentioned there, at least three of them (if not all four) are not about Notability. Further more, at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions, one of the six reasons is notability.
 * Passing off a race that has not occurred, as something that has been completed e.g. commentators calling the race, empty tables, etc. is outright inaccurate, and inaccurate at scale (considering that this has been done for more than one race).
 * Really, there are three outcomes that I see here, each one is as good as the other, and I will lean on the AfD process to accordingly make a call.
 * Outcome 1: Delete the article and re-introduce once the race is completed, and the article is rewritten in the past perfect tense.
 * Outcome 2: Move to Draft WP:DRAFTIFY continue to revise the article, and once the race is completed, the article is introduced back into the mainspace.
 * Outcome 3: Keep the article as-is and have topically knowledgeable editors attempt an WP:HEY and rewrite the article to remove the future dependent elements, and write the article as an upcoming event.
 * I also agree with the viewpoint that many folks are expressing that Outcomes 2 and 3 do not require the AfD process. But, these are legitimate outcomes of the AfD process, and that is where we are now.
 * Good luck, and please let me know if I can help in anyway. Kaisertalk (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like one more piece of help - I looked through all ten reasons that you linked and cannot find any that fit this scenario. If you could point me to the reason that this went to AfD, that would be appreciated.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 04:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as I have made simple copyedits to fix tense problems. This addresses the nominator's concerns and I would urge to see point C1 of WP:BEFORE (If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD) and the lead of WP:BOLD (Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint.)  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:27, 16 July 2020 (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.