Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dirt track ovals in the United States


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Simply no consensus either way. Suggest that concerns about the scope of the articles be taken to the talk pages. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

List of dirt track ovals in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially similar in construction/style and subject matter:

Nominating 5 related list-articles. Each fails NLIST, NOTCATALOG/NOTDIRECTORY. The lists are almost entirely comprised of non-cited entries, some have external links to their own website. Few entries are even bluelinks. The only sources are a few non-independent online directories from which these lists were compiled (WP:NOTMIRROR). Grorp (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, South Africa, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada,  and United States of America.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How exactly does this fail LISTN and NOTDIRECTORY? It seems like a valid way to display information about tracks which are not notable enough for their own article, even if the article can be cleaned up. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly valid lists under our notability guideline. Deletion is not cleanup.
 * SportingFlyer  T · C  11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Most of the nominator's concerns can be fixed by actually working on the article. AfD is not cleanup. The Speedways Online source mentioned by nominator appears to be both independent and has a journalistic structure. I was also able to find an article from Motor Trend which satisfies LISTN. . &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete most. With the exception List of dirt track ovals in the United States per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Keep the United States article but truncate it to the list of notable ones (with articles). Or consider renaming it to List of dirt track ovals and including notable ones from other countries. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would be treat the United States differently considering the content is similar across these pages? These are all valid lists of non-bluelinked tracks per LISTN, no one has accurately stated why NOTDIRECTORY implies instead considering contextual information exists for all these tracks. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The United States list has a section of notable entries that fit the definition of a Dirt Track Oval, I've scrolled through the lists and for most cannot conclude they fit the definition of a dirt track oval. The large amount of unsourced material as well as the use of external links supports the claim of NOTDIRECTORY. Since there are probably at least 10-20 that are indeed notable, there is no harm including only those in a one-off article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ajf773, I was drafting my long reply (below) when your above comment came in. I would suggest putting a short list of any real dirt track ovals with bluelinks into its main article, for example into Dirt track racing in the United States rather than creating a List of dirt track ovals (for the whole world). However, each entry in a list still needs a citation (which might be hard to get, or even lead to yet more articles being AfD'd because they don't have any citations.) Grorp (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a cleanup issue, though, not a notability issue. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Ghost of Daniel Gurney. The articles presented by this user appear to pass NLIST as the topics listed receive coverage as a group. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment (from nominator): These lists are purely directories — a compiled mirror site of other online directories. None of the commenters above have explained how the subject has been "discussed as a group" in any way that isn't merely a directory itself.


 * suggested the link Bucket List of Short Tracks to Visit which has a brief few-sentence blurb of just 10 tracks in the USA. That barely scratches the surface of contributing towards notability for a standalone list. And it is a single source. Where is the significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail where significant coverage is more than a trivial mention that we're so familiar with from general notability guidelines? Where are the sources which are independent of the subject? There aren't any! All 5 of these list-articles were created in 2005, 18 years ago, and to this day lack any such citations we ordinarily consider reliable/independent/significant. In fact, none of the 5 list-articles have any citations; all they have are external links to the websites of entries in the lists (primary), and a few external links to top-level domain names of websites which contain directories themselves. That makes these list-articles not only directories/catalogs themselves, but a mirror site of directories. See WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. GhostOfDanGurney says the articles should be improved, not deleted. However, Ghost hasn't ever edited these articles to improve them (xtools0), though he has participated in 256 AfD discussions (xtools4). Idealistic policy is all well and good, but if no one is willing to fix an article's problems, how long do we wait for someone to magically appear to do it? Meanwhile every wiki-mirror site is copying this OR.


 * 's suggestion above is the best alternative suggested so far. And I considered it, however I would like to remind that per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lists of companies and organizations, there is the requirement If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group and not one of the blue linked entries in these 5 articles had any citations. So let's look at just the first three blue link entries in the USA article; oops, not one of those articles contains any citation that supports them being in the list. The first blue link has a single citation (checking for an archived version) which says this: "Over the years the track has generated some complaints about noise and dust, especially when the racing was conducted on a dirt track. The races are currently held on an asphalt surface." That means it isn't even a dirt track! Oh no! You see the problem, Ajf773?


 * The related article Dirt track racing probably has been well-discussed in reliable sources although that article is mainly OR, lacks citations, and needs serious help. Its related geographic breakout subtopics are questionable: United States (start-class, lacks citations), Australia (it's trying), Canada (was turned into a redirect), New Zealand (arguable), South Africa (worthless stub), and United Kingdom (worthless stub). It's like the entire series of articles was created as cruft, without anyone going back through them and straightening them out — for well over a decade! The deeper I dig into the "dirt track" collection of articles, the more uncited cruft I find.


 * In 18 years these 5 list-articles haven't morphed into citation-ed lists, but instead have attracted additional directory entries. When do we draw the line? If I were to set my mind to "improving" the articles, I would rightfully gut them because there are no citations! But chainsaw-editing tends to lead to edit wars, defensiveness, and not discussion — which is one reason why I suggested a deletion discussion. Grorp (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my editing patterns are absolutely irrelevant here and should be struck per Comment on content, not on the contributor. Oh wow I spend my free time when I'm not working !voting in AfDs a lot therefore delete this article!
 * Secondly, throughout this tirade you're apparently ignoring WP:NEXIST, which very clearly states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.".
 * Thirdly, please tell me exactly what it is about Motor Trend that is not independent of the subject? I find your dismissal of it followed by that line to be very off-base.
 * Fourth, if you want to merge them all and then actually clean it up, cool, fine. I'm not disagreeing that WP:WikiProject Motorsports is crufty in general. But you acknowledge that you went to AfD because of preconceived notions that cleaning up would lead to an edit war, then this discussion could have taken place at a more appropriate venue than AfD, a place where defensiveness is quite common since you're proposing that the edit/attribution history be nuked too, which would not be the case in a merge. As well, the "mass nomination" style encourages WP:ALLORNOTHING !votes, which should be avoided.
 * Fifth, "@Ajf773:'s suggestion above is the best alternative suggested so far. And I considered it, however I would like to remind that per...there is the requirement...and not one of the blue linked entries in these 5 articles had any citations." (bolding mine). This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Numerous blue-linked entries including Port Royal Speedway, Eldora Speedway, and DuQuoin State Fairgrounds Racetrack have citations in their articles. Some, like DuQuoin may not be the best, but but a citation is a citation.
 * Sixth, "wiki-mirror sites" are not Wikipedia's problem. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Your edit history reflects on the value of your argument/contribution. My comment was no different than tagging someone's AfD comment as SPA, or referring to someone as a new—or a veteran—editor. (2) That is idealism. In 18 years of the article's edit history it hasn't been shown. (3) That one Motor Trend link is not significant coverage. (4) I stand by my nomination. (5) The citations belong in the list-article per WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:V. (6) Disingenuous. Your argument suggests WP:V and WP:OR are irrelevant, and that the spreading of any resulting false information is "not our problem". Grorp (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the comment about my edit history was entirely out of line and I maintain that it should be struck. I will not respond to the other points (and I have responses) until that is done. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. You are the one who claims to want "discussion", but by your own admission, instead of choosing a venue in which a lasting discussion can be had, you choose a high-stress, time-limited one, choose to include it in "lists" deletion discussion but not "motorsport" deletion discussion (see: WP:INAPPNOTE), and when pointed out that a better discussion could have been held on the article talk page, dig in your heels, accuse me of "idealism" then become an idealist yourself in points 5 and 6. I firmly believe this AfD should be closed based on this information. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Any editor, including you, is allowed to add notices on talk pages and wikiprojects to bring other editors to an AfD. If there are/were any notices or calls to action to work on the articles or come to this AfD, I'm not aware of any. It looks like Spiderone added 'motorsport' delsort just 8 hours after AfD nomination. I tagged each of the five articles on May 10, 2023, and the only changes anyone made in the intervening month were to add more uncited entries! I think 18 years of waiting, 1-month warning, and a 1-week AfD should be enough time for someone to rally and do something about it if they wanted to keep the articles. Here we are 7 days in and no one has made any changes to the articles. Grorp (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Do something within 5 weeks or your work gets deleted from history" is not the way to go about getting your desired outcome, unless your desired outcome is the work being deleted from history. You realize that tags get left on articles for years, right? You're aware of WP:NORUSH and WP:VOLUNTEER, right? Also, WP:PRODding the articles allows for any editor to restore the history if they want to work on it in the future via WP:REFUND, which a consensus deletion via AfD doesn't allow.
 * You've already admitted that you bypassed WP:BRD editing (which both a merge discussion and a gutting of the article would fall under) when that was an option to you. I have no need to continue going in circles about how long the article has existed or how IPs do what IPs do on the regular and add unsourced content to Wikipedia. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further input (not rehashing the already addressed issue) would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural close per my reply to the nominator's comment; we have varying degrees of notability for the various lists and AfD is the wrong venue as standard WP:BRD editing procedures could have sufficed and were intentionally not attempted before coming here. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You already voted. Perhaps you meant 'comment'. Grorp (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a !vote. My !vote above stands, but I do also believe this AfD should be closed based on information made available after my !vote was published. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because you think that your vote is good one that doesn' t mean that AFD should be immediately closed. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. I feel that the nom is overinterpreting WP:LISTN a bit. As that guideline says in several different ways, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Dirt track ovals (the principal form of racetrack for dirt track racing) seem to have attracted ample coverage as a general topic. Accordingly it seems that LISTN is met and, as the objectors above have observed, this is otherwise more of a cleanup issue. (But from a quick look I'd have to say these articles need a lot of cleanup, and with an eye toward that, I wonder if consolidating these lists as sections of a hypothetical Dirt track oval article might help contain the sprawl.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per SportingFlyer and Visviva Glman99 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (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.