Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drivers who have raced in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

List of drivers who have raced in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A list of drivers who have competed in three arbitrary motorsport series, without any establishment as to why these drivers are important and those competing in other series are not. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. QueenCake (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not arbitrary. Each series is considered the pinnacle of their respective branches of motorsport. DarkAudit (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted, it's not arbritrary - when motorsports is discussed, at least on this side of the pond (yes, I know, WP:BIAS and all that, but still) this is the benchmark used when discussing versatile drivers. However, I'm not going to be pulling up sources to show WP:GNG meeting...because I'm !voting delete. If this was an actual article, or even a properly formatted list, I'd be supporting its keeping, but in its current state, it's simply a set of tables that, IMHO, fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (and also fails WP:YEGADSMYEYES), if there is to be a list on this subject it should likely be at List of drivers who won in multiple top level series or some such, and thus this garish monstrosity deserves a dose of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Falcadore made the best argument against this article on original discussion, in that what makes these three, and only these three, motorsport branches (and Indycar really isn't anything separate at that) more important than any other disciplines? This sort of comparison has not had any independent recognition, beyond what the author first thought. Anyway you're voting delete anyway so no need to go on :). QueenCake (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete unsourced, no indication why these particular 3 series are related or why this particular intersection is notable. No press coverage indicated. There are many genres of motorsports so why these three?  Royal broil  02:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the format of the article (WP:YEGADSMYEYES), and I'm not a fan of motorsports. However, I know a  number of people who are, and who would appreciate the kind of information presented by this article.  Notability?  In a certain field of interest, certainly.  However, I suggest the author develop it into something like [Professional drivers who race in more than one motorsport] or [Professional drivers who have won races in more than one motorsport] -- maybe both. And, oh, yes... references to outside sources (or even to Wikipedia sources of the information) would be good changes.  I suppose that's a vote for keep and modify. Rdev43 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that a list of driver who have won more than one prfoessional motorsport, would create a never-ending argument over who constitutes professional motorsport. The inclusion arguments would be so varied as to be ungovernable. Such a list would also run into the hundreds even with very strict guidelines for inclusion. The end result would like cross WP:OR boundaries. You may as well compile a list of athletes who have won events in more than one kind of sport. It would be a gargatuan task, rone to failures on many levels andin the end provide a result so large that it could not be read easily in a single setting, providing no satisfaction to author or readedr, although that is an pinion obviously. It might have a future as a category, but controversy of inclusion would remain. --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Modify per Rdev43 above - there's nothing intrinisically special about this particular combination of formulae except that they're arguably the three highest-profile pro series at this moment in time, but if someone wants to put the work in, there's a definite opening for an article along the lines of "Professional racing drivers who have competed in more than one top-level category" or something. Also, on another note, can somebody please please write an essay for WP:YEGADSMYEYES? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delte. The notability has to be that of the collection, ie all series mentioned colledctively. A list which collates NASCAR, F1 and Indycar, which it must be said is at least four related series collected under a single banner, is arbirtray because it has not been established why these three series and not two of them, and not any others is wirthy of a list. Based on its own critera it fails the GNG/Notability test, and as an collection of individual items of data it fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:OR or both. --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, it's well established in the American motorsports media, at least, that NASCAR+F1+Indy is the "grand standard" for versatility in motorsports. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 22 April 2012 (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.