Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One race edits songs


 * 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 Delete. Consensus is that this is unencyclopedic. Michig (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Formula One race edits songs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR. No attempt at notability has been claimed nor appears to be possible. It is a non-notable list. It is triple intersection of songs used to make video clips by a website to promote a sport. A triple intersection of topics which together have no notability and is very much trivia. I may be a little sheltered by wikipedia standards but this is the most trivial article I've yet seen in Wikipedia. Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   Zappa  O  Mati   05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

''' UPDATE: This page now have multiple sources. I cannot solve the orphan issue, unless I can place the article links under the correct season. The orphan issue is the only issue present with this article.''' WesleyBranton (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can I not link this article to the seasons? When I click related articles the 2009-2014 F1 Season articles are listed? Wouldn't this mean that they are related? WesleyBranton (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is not an orphan. There is a section about the race edits in the Formula One Wikipedia page. I have added the link to the See Also section because this is a relevant page with that topic. WesleyBranton (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Absolutely no encyclopedic value.Calistemon (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I will relocate the information to the season's page of each chart. ‎WesleyBranton (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The information should not be placed in season articles. It has NO encyclopedic value. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But it does! It is information that people use. I can't believe that Wikipedia even needs to close pages like this because there are far more useless pages on Wikipedia. WesleyBranton (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a Wikipedia page that is a chart just like this one. Why is it allowed and this one is not? WesleyBranton (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we close this page, why can this information just not be included in the season's page? Some nice people helping to make Wikipedia a better community worked hard on this page. WesleyBranton (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can close the page, but must have this information on the season's page. I agree having a separate page on this topic is unnecessary, but the information on the page is anything but that. WesleyBranton (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an incredible long history of Superbowl commercials being independantly notable from the football game itself. Not something that can be claimed by a series of glorified you-tube clips. Just because something exists does not mean it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. We do not for example create an article on what Barack Obama had for breakfast in each day of his presidency. Just because something CAN be tabulated does not mean it SHOULD be tabulated.
 * To put it another way, has there ever been a news item published somewhere about one of these video clips? --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, no. BUT how is having this information posted to the correct season any different from having a movie soundtrack list on a movie article page? WesleyBranton (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, movie soundtracks are published and sold on CDs, in most cases specifically for that movie and are recorded by notable artists and some go on to be independantly notable of the movie, like for example, Kenny Loggins "Danger Zone" was a hi-selling single. These video clips are not even included in the races they are associated with. It is like after seeing the latest Hobbit film a popular website discussion Tolkein's writings publishes an article stating a song should have been included in the movie, but was not, and then compileds a video clip of the song with scenes from the movie. --Falcadore (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These songs are from popular artists (ex. Airbourne) and are played throughout the entire Formula One season on TV and radio broadcasts. If Wikipedia is really that concerned about saving the 2 MB of network space that this article is taking up, then that is their poor choice. I'm just saying there will be over 4000 people (lots more once the season starts again) that will not like this desision. At least if this information is relocated, all of the hard work of the contributors won't be for nothing and the information that people want to see won't be lost. Plus, just to let you know, this information like these charts cannot be found easily anywhere else on the internet. WesleyBranton (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Just because a page is popular doesn't make it notable. Additionally, your argument of the hard work being for nothing can be addressed by WP:MERCY.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, why does Wikipedia need to worry about removing videos that are not breaking any rules? WesleyBranton (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are breaking rules. See the flowchart.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, your argument about this being a copyright violation is invalid because there are no videos or audio clips attached to this article. These charts are to be used as a reference source and there has been no copyright infringement. WesleyBranton (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The video clips may not be attached to this page, but they are available elsewhere (i.e. YouTube), and the only way for this article to be compiled is that someone watched a video that would still be an unreliable source, unless they happen to have superhuman memory. Regardless, the charts can't be used as a reference source if there is no reference for the reference source. To reword that to prevent it from becoming Inception-like, if the charts can't be reliably sourced, they cannot be kept.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The videos can be view legally on the Official Formula One website. Unfortunately, previous seasons are no longer available, but this is where the information can from. This is not copyright infringement because they are available for viewing on the website, downloading them however is copyright infringement. This is not being done on this page. As for the music, this can all be legally purchased on iTunes. Whether the user decides to pirate the music and/or videos is not our responsibility. WesleyBranton (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring my original concept of copyright, the videos of the current season can be viewed. However, as the others cannot be viewed, this one source does not provide enough information to keep the page regardless. Multiple reliable sources still need to be provided for the page to still meet the general notability guideline.  Zappa  O  Mati   04:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is only one source to cite, there is only one source to cite. What can I do about citing sources that no longer exist. It doesn't mean that information is false, it simply means that the sources are no longer available. And it would not be the Formula One website that would be cited, it would be each video individually. WesleyBranton (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And as for the sources, there are tones of Wikipedia pages with no sources at all. Why are they allowed? WesleyBranton (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And just another thing, this information is not stored publicly online anywhere, so by deleting this page, you are erasing information from the public. WesleyBranton (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See? If no other method of getting sources is available, then no reliable third-party sources are available to help the page pass GNG. Also, as the F1 website is the only site that has the videos (and the ones that make the videos), read WP:PRIMARY, which says:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not base an entire article on primary sources. Although I believe your statement on the other videos originally being there, no other source has covered it in compensation. As a result, the article is terribly based on just one primary source, which is not at all a good thing on Wikipedia. Speaking of one source, WP:ONESOURCE would be a read. You might claim that it's "each video individually", which, then again, leads to WP:PRIMARY. For your second statement, other stuff exists, that's why. For your third statement: ha ha, no. Erasing info from the public happens with every article deleted.  Zappa  O  Mati   05:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the life of me I just can't understand why the information cannot just be moved to the season page. There ARE people who use this information. In fact over 4000 people in the last 90 even though this information hasn't changed for months. I don't know why it cannot be moved.<br.WesleyBranton (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, read WP:POPULARPAGE. Just because a page is read by many doesn't make it notable. Also, you cant merge info without coming to a consensus with others, and as of now, the consensus doesn't look too bright.  Zappa  O  Mati   16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Completely trivial information that provides no encyclopedic value.  Zappa  O  Mati   03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to Falcadore's note to our article: "creating a bunch of "See also"s does not cure the article being an orphan. The article has to connect to other topics, not say - come look at me here!", these links were placed on the correct season pages and anchored to the corresponding year. The articles See Also sections were added to WERE related to the topic. WesleyBranton (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an article of solely fan interest, and at that they must have to be really extreme F1 fans to even drill down to music in racing videos to even hold interest in this. Comparing to this, we don't have articles about the songs used in the highlights compilations for Inside the NFL, the former non-E/I iteration of This Week in Baseball or any of the various European football leagues which have weekly highlights shows with current music bedded into them because it's a topic barely of interest to much of anybody.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, if one were to make things racing-centric, it's like making a list of the songs NASCAR on Fox played, like when "My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark (Light Em Up)" was used for the 2013 Sprint Unlimited. And I'm a die-hard NASCAR addict.  Zappa  O  Mati   05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - trivial and non-encyclopedic. Zawed (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pure WP:FANCRUFT, even if it can be considered fandom? Serves no purpose whatsoever.  The359  ( Talk ) 07:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another question that I have is, why this page is just now being considered for deletion? This page has been around since 2012, so if there was something wrong with it, why was it not removed then? Instead, now you are deciding to attack this page. Why? WesleyBranton (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because no user cared about it/knew it even existed until now. For example, the trivial game greasy watermelon existed since 2004, but after I stumbled across it and noticed it wasn't notable, tagged it for deletion.  Zappa  O  Mati   16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, if you want another explanation besides someone stumbling on it, here's 's explanation from WT:WikiProject Formula One:  Zappa  O  Mati   16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Because nobody imagined such a topic could be created. It was noticed when the author started adding links from the season articles to remove a bot created Orphan tag. See, the bots serve a purpose :P. And AfD's create activity. --Falcadore (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What a bunch of BS! Whenever you search anything about the F1 race edits in Google, this page is the second or first result. How can you say no one knows about it? Especially when over 4000 people know enough about it to visit it! This article IS relevant. I keep trying to add information about it in the Formula One page, but people keep removing it. It's almost like people are ignoring that the F1 Race Edits are real and that actual people know about them. This page is being treated as if it were fake! WesleyBranton (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is extremely common. Wikipedia pages are almost always one of the first two results. Also, I'm not saying no one knows about it, I'm saying no one gives a fuck about it until now. Also, you seem to be missing my point about WP:POPULARPAGE. Just because a page is visited by many does NOT make it an encyclopedic topic.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LISTEN This page has sources listed and is no longer an orphan because the link has been added to the Formula One article. There are no longer multiple issues with this article. According to you, the only category that this work falls into in the reasons for deletion is its nobility. Really though nobility is an opinion. Just because you don't feel that this page is important doesn't mean that this other users' opinions.

If you don't want these charts to have its own category, fine. Then at least let us add the information to the correct seasons. That's all I am asking. WesleyBranton (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should listen as well. Notability may be the only category that the page "falls into", bur it is not an opinion, but rather, a guideline. A policy. Pages must be asserted by multiple reliable sources that includes sources not connected to the subject. The article may have its problems solved, but notability is what determines whether or not this page should stay. It's not the popularity/visitors, not the orphan status, but rather, its notability. It MUST pass the general notability guideline in order to be able to stay.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This article DOES fit the guidelines. Here is the breakdown: WesleyBranton (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage - The introduction covers a history and information about significance
 * Reliable - There are multiple sources, not only from the F1 website
 * Sources - There are multiple secondary sources
 * Independent of the subject - This page was not made by the F1 and is NOT advertising
 * Presumed - We are working on adding more information about the Race Edits as you can see from the introduction change
 * No it does not. There are sources, but they are not RELIABLE SOURCES. Although Google Trends may be an exception (not too sure about ShareMyPlaylist), RC Tech and Not606 are forums, which are almost forbidden by policy. An example of a reliable source would be the networks that broadcast the edits' websites (i.e. Sky Sports). Also, for "presumed", you may have added info to the lead, but they are also sourced by the F1 page as well, which doesn't count as a secondary source.  Zappa  O  Mati   18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say! The videos are EXCLUSIVE to the Formula One website, therefore there are no other legal sources with the videos. I have sourced what I can. And ShareMyPlaylist IS a source. Why wouldn't it be? WesleyBranton (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * keep i saw a post about thsi on google+ & need to add in my opinon. this page is fine. Ive been using this page since it was created to see what songs to buy. i agree with WesleyBranton that this page needs to be kept 70.51.73.28 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — 70.51.73.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes I wrote that post. Thank you for the support. You must be the person who 1+ my post. --WesleyBranton (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other sites that can create these as well. Wikipedia is not one of them.  Zappa  O  Mati   18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not a shoppers guide. Just because you may find the information useful does not mean it needs a Wikipedia article.  Just as we do not include full lyrics for songs, we do not need a list of songs featured in a set of F1-related videos.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a shoppers guide. The MUST be included on the F1 seasons pages because they are basically the theme songs for the race that year. Soundtracks are included and this MUST be included, because it is the "soundtrack" of the F1 season! WesleyBranton (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * sayign that this wiki page is unnecessary is like saying all of the pages for songs should be deleted. yet they arent! lets gets some consistancy here 70.51.73.28 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 70.51.73.28's right you know. WesleyBranton (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for why this must be included. These are not soundtracks, this is not a movie, there is nothing official or related to Formula One as a sport that this article or these songs relates to.  Shouting about it wont make it magically notable.  And no, the WP:SPA IP address is not right, this article has absolutely nothing to do with articles on songs on Wikipedia.  The fact that both discuss music is their only relation.  We don't delete songs if they are notable.  This article is not notable.  That is consistency.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's where you are wrong. These race edits are produced by Formula One not a third party. These are official and exclusive videos. Therefore, this is related to the media part of Formula One. It is important to remember that Formula One is not only a sport, but also a business and should not be considered only for the sport aspect of the franchise. WesleyBranton (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the Formula One article has recognized that List of Formula One race edits songs is a valid and related article! WesleyBranton (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, YOU added it to the article. Just because you added a link, does not magically make it any less trivial. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did add the link and the section to the media coverage, BUT it fits in with the topic. They have agreed to allow it to stay in the article because a user changed it back, but then undid that because they felt that it belongs. WesleyBranton (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - unencyclopedic topic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a relevent part of the official Formula 1 media coverage and also the media part is an encyclopedic topic which is important to the sport peda87 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — peda87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's what I've been saying, but they just won't listen WesleyBranton (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Ridiculous trivia. JohnMcButts (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial and unsuitable for a general purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Possibly suitable for The Formula 1 wiki? DH85868993 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I meant when I stated other sites could have this info, though others seem to disagree, and believed this site is more preferable.  Zappa  O  Mati   00:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, it appears there's a box now stating they're actually moving there. Looks like they've officially moved, and are nearing completion of the move. Should this be closed soon?  Zappa  O  Mati   03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The move has been cancelled WesleyBranton (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. A combination of FANCRUFT and ILIKEIT. It appears to be nothing more than a list of songs so that people have a resource for making their own playlists. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and is defines pointless.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Unbeleivable! There is nothing wrong with this article, or even with topic that it cannot be merged or just kept. There are other pages on wiki with f-- child nudity (illegal) and this nice page is getting deletted? That is what wrong with wikipedia. These nice people are saving wikis a-- by writing (basicaly doing everything) all of thes articles for free, then mods and admins sit in their nerd caves and delete articles. The people are the only thing that keeps wikipedia from shutting down. Without them, wiki would be F-! That's why I stopped using wiki years ago. I never use it at all. I workd on an article for f-- almost a year and then got stuck in the same situation that wes is in. the only reason im on here is because i saw a google+ post about this page and wantes to help save it. Everyone should just f--- wikipedia an take away all of the articles. Then wiki would be in deep s--- and maybe treat the users bettr. AND IF I COME BACK TOMORROW AND SEE THAT MY POST HAA BEEN EDIT OR DELETED, ILL BE F-- FURIOUS!!!!! ps. Sory the post is above the rest. Mh tablet no let me scroll the wiki ediyor. Feel free to move post down (MUST BE MOVED IN FULL) AND JST BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING DOES NOT MEAN THE ARTICLE CANNOT REMAIN HER AS WELL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.73.28 (talk • contribs)
 * They removed it. I'm not sure why. I brought it back because it is important that ALL opinions are displayed. Plus this post do not violate the Terms Of Use Some heavy bias on this page, removing people's votes. WesleyBranton (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeez, calm the fuck down. You're attacking admins and need to read WP:OTHERCRAP.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I didn't write this. It was put on yesterday night by an IP user. It was deleted, but I brought it back and censored it because it is bias to remove posts in a debate like this. Although, there is nothing in the Terms of Use that prohibits the use of profanity. WesleyBranton (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that IP the same IP from before that !voted keep?  Zappa  O  Mati   18:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a second... this edit says made the edit, but this shows you replacing the IP's signature with your own. Care to explain?   Zappa  O  Mati   18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that IP is the same as before. I live in a duplex. The IP user is a person that I asked to write something for this user. We share internet and split the cost at the end of the month. For some reason my browser logged me out and it displayed the IP of the internet connection. If you are insinuating that I am the other user, you would be wrong. I just share the same internet. WesleyBranton (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to be home for the rest of the day today. I'll be back tomorrow. WesleyBranton (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to the meat market by any chance? JohnMcButts (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's raining ducks with socks on.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kinda fails the notability guidelines quite dramatically.  The Race Edit doesn't even qualify for an article.  The list of songs surely cannot qualify for an article.  And how many non-music things have a separate article for the list of songs featured?  Barring Guitar Hero and Glee (which are both special cases), very few.  (Sorry Wesley)  — Gyaro  –  Maguus — 19:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruft of the most cruftian kind. No intrinsic value. Something for Wikia perhaps? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we have pretty much reached the point of DEADHORSE. It is quite obvious that there is no place for this article on Wikipedia, and that the editor(s) who created it are simply drawing out the deletion nomination with some very questionable tactics—the above rant being chief among them—to try and keep the page active because ILIKEIT, ITEXISTS, HARDWORK, ADDSVALUE and GOOGLEHITS. It is time to DROPTHESTICK. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (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.