Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One safety cars


 * 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. There seems to be a rough consensus that, while the concept of safety cars as they relate to F1 is notable, a dedicated list of models that have served as safety cars does not constitute encyclopedic content. I sympathize with the WP:NOTPAPER sentiment, as well as the fact that Wikipedia incorporates aspects of "specialized encyclopedias [and] almanacs", but there have been no terribly persuasive arguments presented as to why this list specifically meets our notability guidelines. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Formula One safety cars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK A list article has been created from data previously deleted as being of a trivial nature from Safety car after a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 42 Falcadore (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon advice the additional criteria of WP:PROMO relating to advertised products. The function of a safety car is not affected by the model of car so the detailing of these models, and indeed their selection, is largely advertising. Wikipedia articles should be free of such material. --Falcadore (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion (misleadingly) refers to was about details of safety cars in existing F1 season articles not as a stand-alone article as it now exists. Given his nationality and automotive enthusiasm (going by his username), what's the difference between (or relative merit of) such a list and say List of Holden vehicles or similar ones even in non-automotive fields (e.g. List of Harley-Davidson motorcycles)? Should such similar lists not be deleted also going by 's logic? Despite his personal dislike or bias, no real F1 follower or fan or expert can possibly deny that Safety Cars are not part and parcel of Formula 1. Specifically: As a further point, if one checks the Safety Car article, for other motorsports (North American ones), there are mentions of specific models of cars that, curiously, Falcadore did not have issue with with the exception of similar detail for F1. So what differs between these motorsports to skew his opinion so much? If it were as trivial and unimportant as I think Falcarode is continuing to argue, those cars would not exist and neither would the FIA or F1 and car outlets or car manufacturers dedicate articles to it - see this and this and this and a foreign example here plus a video for good measure by a car magazine here. And to point to other proof of importance or relevance (without me being expert enough to quote your beloved WP objections), in some cases (e.g. Senna's crash) the very type of safety car used has been the subject of F1 literature and discussions and condemnations - look for the Opel Vectra in this Australian example. I do not comprehend the attempt to mix the prior discussion of safety car info being inserted in existing articles vs a whole new stand-alone article as it has since been created using reliable external references too. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * they are part of the sport's suite of safety initiatives in the 1990s
 * there are explicit Sporting Regulations that govern their place in the sports (see this and Regulation 40 and every other reference therein).
 * The article in question does not detail the usage and function of safety cars - and it should not as there already is an article on the subject at Safety car. This article does little other than list the specific models of vehicles used for safety car duties, which is no more notable for example, than say List of cars used by New York Police Department. The make and model of a motorsport safety car is very much secondary to its role and does not directly affect its performance. This is a non-notable list and what is more WP:Original Research as it seems to be that no-one, not even Formula One themselves believes keeping this data is significant.
 * Wikipedia should not be used as a dumping ground of statistics with no actual value. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Falcadore (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting you "The article in question does not detail the usage and function of safety cars - and it should not as there already is an article on the subject at Safety car." Well, the cars were listed in the Safety Car article (as are for the North American sections) but you contributed to the deletion of that information even from there. Wanting it both ways perhaps? And someone impartial should provide an interpretation of WP:Original Research (in this case, it does not seem to  be violated here because there are plentiful reliable sources for each listed car in an F1 context) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which you raise in the context of "statistics" - "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - the stand-alone article exactly avoids this situation were it to be instead put back in the Safety Car article). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion. This is not about putting data into other articles, but removing it completely as non-notable content.
 * There is no need for another editor to provide an impartial definition of WP:OR or WP:INDISCRIMIATE as the provided for links already direct you to an impartial definition. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – One or two cases of the safety car model being mentioned outside the context of "the safety car this year is the Xxxxx Zzzzz" does not warrant a comprehensive list of all models throughout F1's history, I'm sorry. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As and I quote you a whole new stand-alone article, currently the article fails WP:SALAT as pointed out further down in this debate. --Falcadore (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This looks a lot like trivia. It doesn't seem to pass the general notability guideline. Furthermore has not been misleading at all. The last few comments of the discussion they refer to directly deal with a complete list of the F1 Safety Cars, which is the exact same lis that has now been spun off into a standalone article. Make and models of Safety Cars is not that important and the most (in)famous ones are already mentioned in the Safety Car article for every motorsports class and the affected races' articles. Many races don't even see the deployment of the Safety Car. Tvx1 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * trivia is about such sections in an article (as it was for Safety Car) - here we have a stand alone article instead. you raise notability? Then I refer to 's WP:Original research point and related question to me on whether I was the only person who compiled the list. I was not, I simply added to it by finding verifiable and reliable external references. Look at the HISTORY for the Safety Car article to see that it is notable given other users (not me) started off that list long before I added to it. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As wikipedia can not be used to reference itself, "Look at the HISTORY for the Safety Car article to see that it is notable given other users (not me) started off that list long before I added to it." is completely irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to understand your position so much, and how you miscontrue things and are coming across (at least to me) as a law unto yourself in the process. I am not referecing wikipedia on itself. You asked the question (in the F1 portal) if I was the only person who put together the list. I repeat - I was not, and I invited you to look at the relevant history (of Safety Car). I will not further reply if you keep going off a tangent or making extraordinary claims such as the few here, purporting to be acting neutrally when you are not. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? It is not hard. Is there a reliable source anywhere outside of wikipedia that has compiled a list of safety cars or is it only wikipedia edittors that consider such a list notable?
 * Also, can you substantiate any accusations of bias with anything other than your own opinion? --Falcadore (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bias means, among other things "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". Judge yourself against that and then consider you are asking questions for which you find the answer on this very page - see this and this and this and a foreign example here for other external editors (since, now, you are no longer interested in hearing there were other "internal" wiki editors - which was the focus of your original question). I am done answering you. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the original question rather than creatively re-interpret it. --Falcadore (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like (as a third party whom I don't know) wasted time and err with their patrolling, review and linking of the article to Safety Car then? Nice to see trivia thrown in the mix now. See above references and points, noting that was another of the gang that contributed to no such information being incorporated in the Safety Car article. Are there no independent administrators/moderators? I note that even other users had wanted to have that information in Safety Car - see by another F1 fan ( whom I don't know either). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep. I'm surprised this got to AfD. It certainly seemed notable. The make and model of the pace car at the local dirt tracks is announced several times a night. It may not influence the outcome of a race, but the importance the tagline "the official safety car of Formula One" would make a difference in car sales and even the manufacturer's reputation.

This is verifiable, this is certainly not OR, and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a concise list of vehicles with links, without statistics. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would apply, maybe, if it stated each vehicle's torque, power, speed, headlight model number, and the number of bolts per wheel.

I can see how a strict reading of some notability guidelines might make this article seem non-notable, but in reviewing articles I see things that are much less notable than this. Some lists are basically arbitrary points made by the editor. As an example, "Qualities of a Formula One safety car" (as in 'what makes a good safety car?'), might be deleted.

Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limit to the number of articles. It may not be a subject of vital importance, but it is sufficiently useful that it is worth keeping. It's true someone could look up a similar list elsewhere, but having the list as a Wikipedia article allows direct links to the articles about the vehicles. Roches (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete –, the announcement of safety car models at a local dirt track has no bearing on Formula One whatsoever. The ONLY thing Formula One does is issue a small press release every few years when they update the model. There is hardly continuing notability on the subject. Notability is so small, in fact, that Mercedes-Benz themselves pride the current model on being DTM's safety car over that of Formula One's. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sorry but your link points to nowhere useful (wrong URL?) and you are making the car's importance to DTM higher than to F1 on the wrong premise. 1) The F1 announcement came in or about March 2015, DTM in May 2015. It doesn't mean that the most recent announcement wipes out the former. 2) Importance to F1 is much more important than DTM, because whereas the DTM announcement is on the "standard" Mercedes-Benz website, the F1 involvement of their latest car is worthy of inclusion on their "dedicated" F1 site instead - see . To further substantiate notoriety,, in addition to the other external sources linked previously, see also:  http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/amg-gt/90762/mercedes-amg-gt-s-and-c-63-confirmed-as-f1-2015-safety-cars UK car publication] and F1 fan site and the international sporting website ESPN and a very detailed article here. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think it meets WP:GNG to form a stand-alone article, on the grounds that all of the references I can find look like they fall under the definition of WP:ROUTINE. I've looked back at the original attempts CtrlXCtrlV made in April to include the content in the Formula One season articles, and my views on those are: I didn't like the fact that such a small fact was given its own subsection; I wouldn't personally be averse to including the model of safety cars in one of the other sections in seasons when the model changed (call it a 'technical change' or a 'team change' or something like that), but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Aspirex (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi your noteworthy suggestion of including the type of safety car in each Season article as a single line, instead of under its own heading, is how this started. Then some commented that it was not a technical change, hence a separate section. Then, people complained about a separate section under each season. Seems like no matter what one tries, it never works, typically to the usual few. Nobody has yet explained to me (for my future benefit), why other lists such as List of Honda vehicles can exist and this one cannot, when: (1) Safety Cars are integral to Grand Prix racing; (2) they have influenced the race results at times; (3) "safety car" status is relevant to raise the performance status, prestige and sales of the standard production models (and brands) involved. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – added this for clarity. Reasons and argument already above but to make life easier with anyone impartial or inexpert wishing to determine NOTORIETY by themselves, here are all the random external resources mentioned above (a few of many online), compiled in one line: official F1 website and official Mercedes-Benz website and random website and random foreign website and German car magazine VIDEO and dedicated Mercedes-F1 website and UK car publication (AutoExpress) and F1 fan site and international sports website, ESPN and 2015 press release on random car website. Again, what's so different and unmeritorious about this List and, say, something like List of Pontiac vehicles? Please educate me. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If your so offended by the presence of the Pontiac article, then go ahead and propose it for deletion. I don't any of those with the opinion in favour of deleting have directly supported that article. Note that it has no citations and a tag has been in place requesting some for six years. It has a low chance of survival considering those facts. However, it is not that relevant to this article. The (lack of) the existence of similar articles has no bearing on this content and it's deletion discussion. So please stop citing other articles. The only question raised here is whether this content merits a standalone article in its own right. I'll reiterate that the most notable content of this article (e.g. Safety Car used at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix) will stay in the Wikipedia regardless on the appropriate places. Tvx1 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No offence at all caused to me by a list of Pontiacs (or Harley-Davidsons or Or Hondas etc) - you're exaggerating (see The359's more sensible reply on the merit of such lists). Was just pointing out the inconsistent (discriminatory?) approach with respect to calling for the deletion of this list. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – User:CtrlXCtrlvV has been canvassing users to come here and support keeping the article. This may have compromised this discussion. Tvx1 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the blatantly obviously cases of canvassing pointed out here, CtrlXctrlV wrongly and continually refers to user Roches as an administrator, which the user is not. Any user can patrol a page, not just administrators. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 18:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for elevating your status, perhaps you both demonstrated attributes worthy of same in my mind at least and I should learn my way around Wiki a bit more. As to canvassing, I was not aware of the "concept" until the last 24 hours (thanks to a "fresh set of eyes" that I have been calling for to bring more neutral and balanced views to the discussion, even from mine) I would have thought advocating a position in a discussion is normal. I did not realise Wiki operates differently (which might explain why some users appear to be out of touch with the real world) and this is probably no defence, but for days I have just been responding in kind. If the warning received on my Talk page was not extended to others or is randomly used on this project page, it is hypocritical but not troublesome to me. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I fail to understand how you can think going to a select few users to ask them to support your cause is acceptable behavior. And how is that out of touch with the real world? Doesn't every jury trial feature a jury that's completely unrelated in any way to both the defendant and the prosecutor? And for trials that don't feature a jury, isn't the judge unrelated to the involved parties as well? Every article fall within a subject area and it's perfectly normal to notify the relevant WikiProjects in a neutral manner. So basically just notifying of the discussion without mentioning one's own opinion at all. Deletion discussions are posted on relevant noticeboards anyway. Under the statement of the nominator you can find the noticeboards on which it has been advertised. If you think others canvassed as well, please tell who and they will receive their warning as well if it applies. But please drop the idea that "Formula 1 regulars are ganging up on you" and hunting you down. Note that non F1 Project members have weighed in their opinion in this discussion both for delete and keep. The reason why a number of editors think this article should be deleted is because they think the content does not merit inclusion and that has nothing to do with whom created the article. I myself couldn't care less who created it. Tvx1 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't take any pleasure in saying this, but you should stop embellishing things and being overzealous, so these side discussions that detract from the topic of discussion would end. Believe it or not, I am replying as a matter of courtesy only, just as also a matter of courtesy that I explained my knowledge of "canvassing" or lack thereof until recently on your page, which you did not knowledge. Do I care? No, much like the warnings (one of which you soundly deleted) you belatedly made. You refer to the legal system? Well, allow me to refer to the Spanish inquisition in the way some of you carry on in the F1 project/portal - just refer to complaints made by others as well. For completeness though, nothing was ever said about you having a go at the creators of articles. What was said is, it is amazing how something that does not breach WP (they are termed using "should" and not in the absolute and miscontrued terms used to support deletion), does not cause any harm, adds to knowledge, is consistent with other lists, is supported by external reliable sources, is part of F1 history and events, could be integrated in a single line in each Season report (but was opposed also) - could cause such havoc. Now, if you don't mind, accept this as the last "side discussion" reply and if you or others don't like what is being said or has been said remember this - everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been other complainants about the usual suspects in F1 portal/project (it's really true, the rotten apples do spoil the cart). If you or others can relate to that, do ponder on it and try making this environment more welcoming and collaborative instead. On my part, I have acknowledged my errors where genuinely made in ignorance of the Wiki ways. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Safety cars are part of Formula One, but they are also part of every form of motorsport. Their importance to those sports however does not require a listing of every single safety car in every form of motorsport ever. In my opinion the only listing of safety cars that is relevant is List of Indianapolis 500 pace cars due to the uniqueness of the role: many of the cars are custom-made creations or one-off concept cars, plus the fact that celebrities and heroic figures are given the role of driver for the pace laps at least gives something worth discussing. Other lists for general, mass-production cars exist simply because they produce a wide variety of cars in a wide variety of roles in a wide variety of markets, it is unlikely that the average reader would know of all models ever built. The reason for this deletion discussion is not because it is a list, but because it is a trivial list. A listing of every Pontiac model is not trivia, a listing of every Formula One safety car from year to year is. Simply because information exists and can be put in a nice little chart does not mean it should be a Wikipedia article. "Some people might want this information" is not a reason for inclusion.

As an aside, I think the article suffers from not having a clear understanding of what a safety car is. Cars which are used for the purpose of pacing the field under caution are safety cars. Cars which respond to accidents and provide medical assistance are not safety cars. This includes cars which follow the field on the opening lap of the race for the purpose of assisting any accidents that occur on that first lap. Several cars on this list, specifically "unofficial safety cars", have not been shown to have actually been used for pacing duties. I'd further point out that much of the sourcing, beyond "Mercedes announced this new model for this year", is from blogs that fail WP:RS. The359 ( Talk ) 18:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The understanding exists, and it is in the linked Safety Car article. The "unofficial" section is because not even F1, prior to 1992/93, had set rules. The list could always commence from the "official safety car" era, would it be more appropriate? As to anomalous references, easy fix. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - My proposal would just be to mention that seasons safety car in the introduction to the page. CDRL102 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support this idea ( does too) as a last resort - it would mean that it can be done with no more than a single sentence in each season article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If there are factual errors in the page, that is not a reason to delete all of it, because the errors can be corrected. I think the article meets the notability criteria, and "some people might want this information" is a reason for inclusion, because Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. The presence of information on a subject in the print world or on the web makes it notable, not the importance in a particular field.

Those in favor of deletion have mostly said that the article should not be on Wikipedia or that it's unnecessary. Many of the notability guidelines cover what "should" be on Wikipedia in the sense of what is desirable but not what is acceptable. Once an article is created, things are different. Does this article cause any negative effect? Does it promote something that has been ignored by the media, or involve a conflict of interest, or is it just that it's taking up space? Roches (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I specifically said as an aside that the article had issues. My reason for deletion is quite clearly the subject matter of the article, not its flaws.  Some people might want this information is not a criteria for inclusion.  Look specifically at the examples in WP:NOTSTATSBOOK to see that just because information exists does not mean it warrants inclusion.  Giving the article a pass simply because it exists and is not harming anything is completely bunk logic.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which one of the four items at NOTSTATSBOOK are you referring to? Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The359  ( Talk ) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING would be the more direct link. And see WP:NOHARM for the value of the "Does it cause any negative effect question." Tvx1 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles don't get to exist just because they're "not hurting anything." One of the negative effects I used as an example was promoting something ignored by the media. WP:NOHARM addresses why harmlessness shouldn't be used as an excuse for non-notable content, and I wasn't suggesting that we allow a non-notable article to remain. I meant that while WP:NOTSTATSBOOK might be construed to apply, the article does IMO present notable information, and so objections under WP:NOTEVERYTHING don't mean the article should be deleted.
 * "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion" applies to things like List of Pokémon with blue eyes or List of valedictorians of Grand Bend High School. It's referring to things that aren't notable, or to arbitrary lists. A complete list of safety cars in F1 is not an arbitrary list. One way of testing that is that it is possible that another person totally unconnected to the creator of this article might reasonably create the same article. This would not be the case for Qualities of a good safety car, for example.
 * I thought about the alternative of listing the safety car for each season. That, really, just seems to be a way of deleting this article, but keeping the information. If that were done, a reader would have to go to a different article to see the safety car for a different year, and would have to look through all the season articles to know all the cars. It almost recognizes that the safety cars are notable, but for some reason they cannot be put into a list. So is this just up for deletion because of a talk page discussion? Roches (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Safety Cars in as concept general might be notable as a concept, but I strongly doubt that the make and model of every single F1 Safety Car is notable. Otherwise they would receive more significant coverage in the source. As has been stated time and time again, the most (in)famous F1 Safety Cars are mentioned in the Safety Car article. That should be giving them enough due weight. That some Safety Car models are notable does not justify having a list including utterly unnotable ones. Tvx1 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that, since 1996, the Formula One safety car has been nothing more than a sponsorship scheme for Mercedes-Benz. The only coverage is from Mercedes themselves promoting their latest and greatest model.  The cars are not chosen by the series or the FIA, they are chosen solely by Mercedes-Benz.  This is similar to MotoGP where BMW is the official safety car, despite BMW not even participating in the series.  Why is a list of what models Mercedes-Benz chose to promote notable?  Surely their status as safety car provider can be integrated into Mercedes-Benz in Formula One.


 * Pre-1996 safety cars were merely whatever the individual circuit had at their disposal, hence why a Honda Prelude paced the field at a Honda-owned circuit. These cars have not been chosen by some merit, success, or notability like List of Formula One World Drivers' champions or List of red-flagged Formula One races.  Its simply a list of who was promoting what and when, of which Mercedes-Benz occupies 90% of the field.  This list would be akin to creating List of Formula One timekeepers, which again is a sponsorship platform.  The359  ( Talk ) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments specifically addressing the 3 reasons for deletion nomination - if we go back to Safety car as a concept and, inevitably, the relevant article, then I need to point that the NASCAR and Indianapolis 500 sections do list the cars involved, without there being any external or reliable reference (instead, Wiki is used to reference itself via links to the respective cars) or reference to sporting rules, as they clearly exist in F1. Consequently, if I keep going on about "inconsistencies" or "bias" by some of the opponents here, it's because these same parties have demonstrated both phenomena by failing to "sanitize" the rest of the Safety car article consistently. THAT IS, unless it is suddenly ok to re-instate the F1 safety cars list there, thereby putting an end for the need of the separate List of Formula One safety cars article being the subject of deletion discussions here.
 * But back focussing on this topic, List of Formula One safety cars has been nominated for deletion on the basis of:


 * 1) WP:OR - the F1 safety cars listing is not "original thought" and is based on ample published and reliable source - as a key example, see ESPN's article here listing all cars since 1996. So what that it now happens to be the case that the same car manufacturer is the supplier? What WP does that breach? Certainly not WP:OR
 * 2) WP:INDISCRIMINATE - this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since it is in the context of Safety car (which lists those cars in other motorsports) and Formula One and the relevant seasons. By being its own list, it does not unduly prejudice the content of any other article (much as lists such as, say, List of Formula One broadcasters (that, incidentally, I support) or List of Formula One video games (that has less or no utility in the context of the sport and is more commercial in nature than a safety car whose function is paramout to the sport now)
 * 3) WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - it is not an excessive listing of statistics, since it only provides information and links to the respective seasons and cars (the latter being another "context" to this information). Moreover, it is only a listing of cars (themselves providing additional context) and not a compilation of statistics or data on their engine size, power, speed, etc.
 * Even if I am wrong with the above summary, the Wikipedia WP's are not in the absolute terms put forward in arguments for deletion. And the deletion arguments are also circulary to an extent or lack basis (e.g. just because some external references may be questionable, they do not negate the rest). One such argument is that this information lacks notoriety - apologies if I indulge myself again with recycling these external references - F1.com and Mercedes and random publisher and foreign research plus a video here as a German here car magazine special
 * There is always a silver lining in every cloud, and for me it is learning more of what I described as "the Wiki way". This day is coming across WP:CON, which stipulates that Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Given that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here are not being disrespected in any material way, why don't we look all adapt? The alternatives can be referring to the safety car once only in each respective F1 season article (or each Grand Prix, if it is responsible of any particular outome - e.g. the Vectra at San Marino 1994) or simply reinstating this content (now with fully referenced sources), in Safety car. For me, these are and remain a last resort but could provide a way forward.
 * List of Formula One safety cars is not poorly written (if it is, it can be fixed easily), does not have unrealiable sources (if there are, they can be easily removed), is definitely contextual (with respect to the sport and manufacturers involved) and is not trivial (e.g. because the specific cars used can and do impact race results or events; contrast it with other articles where commentary or photographs exist to show different race car liveries - which have NO impact on anything)
 * As is, without saying the opponents' views have no basis (and I fail to see basis when the WP's are properly read and applied), they have no greater value than views in favour for this list to remain, in whatever form CtrlXctrlV (talk) 1st3:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (Disclaimer: User:CtrlXctrlV has asked me on my user talk page to opine here, not being aware that I routinely check all AfD pages, he also mistook my "keep" closure of a previous AfD of one of his articles as a "keep" vote, obviously I didn't vote there, I merely assessed consensus) User:CtrlXctrlV sums up correctly why OR, INDISCRIMINATE and NOTSTATSBOOK do not apply here. There is in fact still the question of WP:PROMO #5: The safety car has become a sponsored promotional item, and for a long time it has been supplied by the same car manufacturer. I suggest !voters ponder over this, or cite different guidelines for or against keeping this list, and leave the WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments out. Wikipedia is not a question of personal preferences. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – It should be noted that the above commenter was pretty heavily canvassed, rather than asked in a neutral manner to simply provide an opinion, which would explain the abstinence of a vote. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I have bolded the disclaimer? AfD is not a ballot, it's a discussion, and my above comment doesn't need any further explanation, or does it? Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought I had explained my comment pretty clearly, that your "disclaimer" made it sound like the request was a pretty neutral one, when in fact it was far from it. The actual content of your remarks isn't the issue here at all, so there's no need to get defensive about that. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Does this article pass Notability, which says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." (I was asked to comment here.) Cunard (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: I do not believe it has. I have, for other reasons, previously asked User:CtrlXctrlV if the Safety Cars as a group or set had been discussed by Reliable Sources but the editor concerned chose to interpret my question differently so the question has never been answered. The Mercedes-Benz cars have been - although as mentioned above that has some WP:PROMO concerns, but certainly a list has not been linked or provided, so on that basis fails WP:SALAT. --Falcadore (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer: could be that your original question was so ambiguous that it lead to an answer you had not envisaged and I note that you correctly point out you had asked that question "for other purposes". If you want to have another go at it, happy to answer it if relevant and appropriate. I also don't follow how you're purpoting to rely on (the newly argued) WP:SALAT as part of your deletion argument. On WP:PROMO, the concerns may be described as superficial only, since many things in Formula One are supplied by single companies (as a most notable example, tyres by Pirelli. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: And none of those single companies have a stand alone list either. --Falcadore (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's indeed true but that's no reason to judge the pertinence of this list. If I had time, I'd setup a tyre suppliers, especially in the context of the "war years" between +1 manufacturer. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies: Let me also take this opportunity to apologise to (for getting his user status wrong),  (for approaching him and contextualising same on his past actions elsewhere, that I wrongly interpreted and that he has corrected me on here),  (for approaching him also) - feel free to follow the time stamps of my approaches, but they all occurred before becoming aware of canvassing and making this known too. Whether you accept this or not, it is of no consequence now, but instead of criticizing those people, criticize me. I have no issue admitting any error, as I have done previously above and elsewhere (this had nothing to do with the subsequent warning I received). In the interest of full transparency, I have also contacted  who instead chose to abstain. Our discussion has not been prejudiced in any material way. The above approaches were made to introduce "fresh eyes" to this discussion. For completeness, I do not know or have previously contacted  or  and it should be noted that both users put forward suggestions of adding safety car details in each season report. This might put an end to this discussion or bypass the newly introduced WP:SALAT argument against, although the latter is not made out pending a more substantive basis. If anything, WP:SALAT supports the appropriatness of this list remaining. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, safety cars are and has always been a major part of the sport. It is as important in this sport as the maker of the World Cup ball is in association football, and we have an article on the latter. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have Safety Car to satisfy that need. That does not justify having a full list every version of F1 Safety Car ever used in addition to it. Tvx1 22:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , as you know, the article Safety Car used to satisfy that need until it was "washed down" to cater for multiple motorsports and not just Formula One, or else I'd agree with you. This list is complimentary, in much the same way as "list of vehicles" (as the examples I used above), compliment articles on the manufacturer and the respective cars. None of these lists breach any relevant WP. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comparison with the maker of the footbal is not appropriate. The football is an important part of the game, where as the safety car is merely a tool employed by officials. A closer example would be the maker of the referee's boots or their whistles. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The safety car, post-1992, is more than just a tool used by officials as can be gleaned from the fact that: (i) they can no longer be the family sedans that used to be in the role; (ii) they are now custom-built; (iii) their role is prescribed under the rules and part of a tender process; etc.. A referee's boots or whistles can be performed by any of the kinds and that's where that analogy fails. If it were a list of "what wristwatch do drivers wear", your analogy would stand up. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, while every football match needs a ball and referee's whistle to be able to happen (and that counts for every type of football, whether is american, association, australian, rugby or gaelic), whereas the majority F1 races don't need the intervention of the Safety Car at all to be completed. And yes Safety Car does satisfy the need. That it doesn't is just your opinion. Contrary to what Snowsuit Wearer seems to insinuate, deleting this list would no private our users of information on what a F1 Safety Car is. That's where their keep argument falls over. It is simply a case, like a number of the other keep arguments, of ILIKEIT. Furthermore, their argument that they have always been a major part of the sport is plainly wrong. Prior to 1973 there were hardly any Safety Cars in Formula 1. Don't forget this sport has existed since 1946. While Safety Cars have been used in the sport as early as 1973, they have only really become an important part of the sport since roughly the mid-90's. Tvx1 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

...and so on. Twirly Pen ( Speak up ) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would not be opposed to a simple table being introduced to the safety car article, like
 * That has no bearing on this deletion discussion however. Tvx1 05:15, 25 August 2015 (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.