Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian racing drivers


 * 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 no consensus, after extended time for discussion, nor is there any measure of support for draftification. BD2412 T 00:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Brazilian racing drivers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although there was a clear consensus to keep these "lists" nothing have been changed. The "lists" were abandoned in the day they were created, so I do believe we should move it to the draft space to give at least chance for improvement. In the current state they are clearly don't belong to the article space. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related:
 * .Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced, incomplete, someone had good intentions to start the work, but then stopped. No problem if someone wants to at least try and work on these, but nothing would be lost if they were deleted right now.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly valid navigational lists per CLN and LISTPURP that can obviously be expanded given the number of articles in the corresponding categories. I don’t see the point of starting an AFD here at all. Time wasted on this bureaucratic process would have been better spent developing these further. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem that for seven years both list have not been developed at all, if we at least move it to the draft space it would have receive at least some attention. Is it possible for you to look at the real picture instead of drawing the imaginary ideal? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Impatience is not a deletion argument, and we don't delete content based on its current state. Why didn't you start adding entries from the category to expand it, instead of starting your second AFD on this page? What other attempts at "attention" have you tried, can you show me the Wikiproject or talk page discussions you've started? postdlf (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I the one who propose to conserve this crap? So why should I do it? Why you have not tried any of this? Even now? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are, in fact, the most significant contributor to the page over the last four years, and you haven't improved it. You haven't even solicited other editors to improve it. You have dragged it to AFD twice in what I can only imagine is an attempt to provoke other editors to improve it. In my opinion this is disruptive. pburka (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Encouraging the other editors to do something with it = disruption? Okay... Corvus tristis (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Should be categorised into Category:Brazilian racing drivers and Category:German racing drivers respectively. Pass WP:LISTN, and AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Narky Blert (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * expand list and unreferenced tags might encourage editors to work on these articles. Narky Blert (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it pass WP:NOTSTATS? Maybe it should have better inclusion criteria? I assume that such big inclusion criteria prevents desire to start a work because it will never have the end cause it will have months of work (especially if goal is to show the current series of the driver). I putted these tags already but they were removed by someone. I do believe that none of the "keepers" will work with any of these lists and they will be in the current state for the further seven years. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not add expand list. You tag-bombed it with cleanup-reorganize, context, fansite, lead rewrite, unfocused, and unreferenced, which, apart from the last, weren't really relevant or helpful. pburka (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do believe that all of these tags are relevant and just noted that unreferenced hasn't encouraged anyone. In this case the tags can't change the situation, the only solution to resolve it will be the changing of focus from all German racing drivers to something more criteria-based. If we look at the columns, it looks like that the author wanted to create List of current Brazilian/German racing drivers, which is probably more possible to make and update, then creating all-time list of more than thousand German racing drivers (most of the racing drivers won't have actual article at all, because they won't pass notability criteria) with listing note about everyone and their last/current series and team. But in any case the current state of the list cries about these lists to be draftified. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This list clearly passes WP:LISTN: it's easy to find discussion of Brazilian race drivers, as a group, in reliable sources. However, the list is so woefully incomplete as to be misleading and of no use to navigation. Some of the most successful drivers of all time, such as Nelson Piquet, Ayrton Senna, pt:Manuel de Teffé, and Rubens Barrichello, are missing. I'm beginning to question our list inclusion criteria, and wonder if lists like this one are actually improving the encyclopedia, especially when there's no corresponding prose article (e.g. Motorsport in Brazil) to provide context. (And yes, I've argued to keep similar pages in the past.) pburka (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify - the subject passes notability but is so severely lacking that it isnt remotely useful. It needs to b draftified where it can be expanded and turned into a half-decent list. SSSB (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or, failing that, draftify -- at present these lists (incomplete, unsourced and with an arbitrary 2013 cutoff) do the reader a disservice. If anybody wants to make a new list, the existence or nonexistence of this abandoned attempt does not make much difference to them. —Kusma (t·c) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another alternative is to redirect to Formula One drivers from Germany and Formula One drivers from Brazil, the articles that actually contain the information people may want to search for at these titles. —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirect. A mere fraction of German/Brazilian drivers competed in F1. Such a redirect would be more misleading than anything else SSSB (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is not a great redirect, but a lot better than keeping this draft visible. —Kusma (t·c) 10:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both A list is always more useful than a category, it allowing more information to be presented. Being incomplete is never an acceptable excuse to delete an article.   D r e a m Focus  20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)  And of course, this is a valid list article as it aids in navigation, everyone listed having their own Wikipedia article. WP:LISTN is met.   D r e a m Focus  17:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then again, It's useful is never an acceptable excuse to keep an article.Tvx1 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither us WP:I don't like it. Categories, lists, and navigation templates however explains that if its suitable for a category, its fine for a list, you shouldn't destroy one because you like the other better.   D r e a m Focus  17:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And just who cited WP:I don't like it then?. Accusing us of wanting to destroy information is another of the logical fallacies you been spewing here.Tvx1 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic of Brazilian or German race drivers is notable, and it would be reasonable to have lists of notable drivers from those countries. However, despite the titles, those aren't the topics of these lists. These are lists of current race drivers (as of 2013). There's no evidence that these much more specific topics are notable, and lists of current things are always problematic because they require continuous maintenance, which nobody is committed to performing in this case. No objection to recreating (or rescuing) lists with the same title as these but different topics. pburka (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current content would be a loss either, but the problem with doing a reboot of a page through AFD is it implies that the very concept of the list is invalid and leaves any recreations at risk of speedy deletion. And it's just a big waste of time. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't entirely the current content, but the current topic (active Brazilian racing drivers). Deleting that topic and replacing it with a notable one is akin to deleting a page about a non-notable person and replacing it with an article about a notable person who shares their name. pburka (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't "active Brazilian racing drivers". I already expanded the article to include far more.   D r e a m Focus  17:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what the current topic is. The tables still have "current" columns that are just blank for the recently added drivers. (And they're still incorrect; for example, Adrian Sutil hasn't raced in six years.) If the topic is made clear, and if the topic is supported by reliable sources, I'll withdraw my delete recommendation. pburka (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all There is not a policy or guideline based rationale for deletion advanced in the nomination, so this could be WP:SKCRIT. WP:NTEMP is a relevant guideline: if the list was notable when created and it does not lose it's notability because it was neglected. Anyone including the nominator can update the list. According to our policies, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP - is a valid policy reason to keep. And my opinion is that WP:LISTN is the relevant notability guideline which tells us to keep this list. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, Draftifying is akin to deletion, there is zero evidence that moving an article to draft space—where it’s harder to even find—will encourage anyone to improve it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, if the topic is notable then why none of the lists feature any sources which prove it? I see only wishful thinking from the keeping guys. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not need a reference for a list that links to articles that confirm the information. That would be pointless.  Click on any link, infobox has information in it, article about the person.  Easier to click a link to their article than to a reference you know most aren't likely to ever actually read.   D r e a m Focus  17:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, what about WP:BURDEN? It cleary says that "All content must be verifiable." Corvus tristis (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its verified in the articles linked to.  D r e a m Focus  10:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to interprete the words from policy in any way you like, but not sure if it is the correct one. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The information is verified in each of the linked articles. It would be nice, better ever, if it was also cited in the list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think was referring to sources that prove the notability of the subject, not just routine coverage that proves the drivers exist.Tvx1 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. We have loads of half-baked articles and lists stubs so I’m unconcerned about having one or two more. I think adding a few paragraphs of introduction and some thoughtful editing tags could helpful as like all lists this one needs some work, including its definition of inclusion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer if this is not kept please merge /redirect to race car driver or similar. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fail WP:NOTSTATS. Clearly indiscriminate lists. Not convinced that it satisfies WP:LISTN either. Those who raised this as an argument to keep it have not substantiated their claim. They merely state as fact in their own voice. In reality, I have not seen the subject of all racing drivers being discussed in meaningful reliable sources. Sometimes you see them discussing racing drivers from said countries in a particular very important racing classes, but not all drivers in all categories. Ultimately the nature of the chosen subject is way to vague to have any encyclopedic value. There are so many racing categories in the world, many of which are not notable at all. How can one ever aim to make a list of all racing drivers in all categories from a certain country?? As someone explained before it is even defined. If you go by all drivers you get list that are way too large to have any encyclopedic value and if you go by active drivers you get lists which will perennially be outdated. In the meantime we already have articles like Formula One drivers from Brazil and Formula One drivers from Germany that deal an a much more encyclopedic manner with those drivers that are really notable.Tvx1 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tvx1. I'm also not convinced that these lists have independent notability. I also feel that the selection criteria are far too broad. We have the Formula one driver lists, and potentially we could have lists like "Grand Prix drivers from Germany" (ie pre-war drivers) or "American Open wheel racing drivers from Brazil" (Indycar, CART etc) etc, since these may be independently notable, and the size would not be pointlessly large. A7V2 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination tells us plainly that there's an existing consensus to keep and that nothing has changed.  The nomination is therefore contrary to WP:DELAFD which states that " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.".  These topics clearly pass WP:LISTN and so the following policies and guidelines apply: WP:ATD; WP:CHOICE;WP:IMPERFECT;WP:NOEFFORT; WP:NOTCLEANUP;WP:SOFIXIT;&c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , waiting three years is not disruptive. People said "Issues can be fixed" three years ago, four years after the pages had been created. Issues have not been fixed. I find it unreasonable to keep around drafts like this in mainspace forever. These pages are miles from being acceptable via AFC; it is surprising how much lower our bar for inclusion is at AFD compared to AFC. —Kusma (t·c) 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because AFC is quite broken and dysfunctional. It is long-established that Wikipedia does not have a deadline and that poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.  As we're at AfD here, then our deletion policy is what counts and that's what I cited.  See also WP:IDHT. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Two AFD's in three years is not in any way repeatedly nominating a page. Also, per WP:NOTAGAIN, a previous AFD having taken place is not in any way justification to keep an article. Thus you have not provided any even remotely meaningful argument as to why this content merits inclusion on Wikipedia.Tvx1 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no case to answer because the nomination does not provide a reason to delete. The nomination confirms that this is a valid topic and just wants it developed further, proposing draftification as a means of getting this done.  That's a daft idea because draft space is a graveyard for articles rather than being constructive. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. So, you think that when administrator User:Victor Schmidt without further ado draftified the article about the current topic he wanted to move it to the graveyard? 2. If the lists are really notable and neccessary for our community then why they should die in the draftspace? F1 for example had drafts about future seasons and all of them were returned to the article space. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural note, I am not (yet) an administrator. Unsourced stuff will be draftified by me; except for CSD-siutable stuff. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course nobody actually believes relisting an article after three years is disruptive. "Consensus can change" is policy after all. Such accusations are only made to be annoying and dismissive. Reyk YO! 10:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftification is certainly disruptive. In the example given by Corvus Tristus above, the movement of that other article between namespaces did not go smoothly and so a history merge had to be done.  There are other technical problems with drafts such as the disabling of categories.  And the process adds no value at all -- just extra complication and confusion.  I attended a meeting of experienced UK editors on Sunday and there was general agreement that AfC was broken.  Keep it simple. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete- Both of these articles are incomplete segments of an excel spreadsheet. There's no real information there and not much navigational value. The keep result at the previous AfD was contingent on the article being improved and in over three years that hasn't happened, which looks a lot like evidence that there's no way of getting these into an acceptable state for an article. Reyk YO! 10:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline WP:NOTDUPE states clearly that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". And the idea that categories are self-maintaining is incorrect.  Currently, there are just 19 lists at AfD while CfD has 530 open discussions and is so overwhelmed that there's a backlog of 274 waiting to be closed.  The category system is a kludge that was bolted onto Wikipedia.  It doesn't work well for searching and, because it doesn't support citations, it is not compliant with fundamental policies like WP:V.  Wikidata is doing a better job of creating a searchable database of items and attributes and so we can expect it to make the category system obsolete.  Lists will be more enduring because they are more like articles, supporting prose, citations, pictures, &c.  That's why we can have featured lists but featured categories are defunct. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , your link goes to Featured topics instead of Featured categories. FT seems to be alive. Featured Categories have never existed. —Kusma (t·c) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the link to Featured categories, thanks. That page says its shortcut is WP:FT but I suppose that's an error – another failure in the category scheme. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - to the several editors saying these lists clearly satisfy WP:LISTN: then why is there not a single reference or link on either article or in either AFD discussion which gives any example of a reliable source discussing (not just listing, as is required by LISTN) drivers from Brazil (or Germany) as a group (and not specifically F1 drivers for example)? I couldn't find any such source online, and I don't know of any books which include such discussion. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * e.g. Before Fittipaldi, Piquet andSenna:The Beginning of Motor Racing in Brazil. Also "They were both trying to explain why so many top-class racing drivers are Brazilian. All Brazil's successful racing drivers—Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet, Ayrton Senna, Mauricio Gugelmin and Robert Moreno—started off in go-kart..." and "One of the idiosyncrasies of Brazilians is that they generally love car racing ... This habit became popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when several Brazilian racing drivers...". pburka (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another example: Brazil – Motor Racing Mania. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou both. However I remain unconvinced. Pburka's first example is a history of motor racing, not so much racing drivers. The second discusses only F1 drivers (but see my comment at the end), third example didn't work (just a google search results page) but from the quote that doesn't say much without further context since "racing drivers" could well just mean F1 drivers, and mere mention of the term doesn't confer notability. Andrew Davidson's example specifically talks about F1 drivers, then briefly discusses CART drivers. As I said in my "oppose" earlier, I do think that there is potential for an article about Brazilian CART/Indycar drivers (some of the drivers mentioned in Pburka's second example were perhaps more noteworthy as CART drivers). I'm sorry to say I remain unconvinced that this satisfies LISTN. A7V2 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 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.