Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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 delete. WjBscribe 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of racing drivers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated for deletion as it is rather indiscrimate purely as amateurs can apply for a race car license and therefore they are a race driver, should all be split into specific lists instead (i.e. F1 or NASCAR). Originally nominated by Garth Bader 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC), renominated by Garth Bader 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This would be enormously huge if it were ever even close to complete. Works better as a category. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categoruse per Andrew Lenahan. Would work far better as a series of categories, even if additional context could be added to the article in its current state. -- saberwyn 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize per nominator's cogent commentary. FCYTravis 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Better as a category, as other commenters have stated above. Otherwise we will have debates about the completeness of the list, and the criteria for membership. Should not have entries for people without their own articles. Doing a category gives us that property automatically. EdJohnston 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just my 2p worth: surely at this point in the debate this is a speedy close. Although all five wikipedians above have used the word "delete", in fact upon reading their votes:
 * User:Garth Bader is actually voting for a split into smaller articles and the removal of some nn items: a job he could do himself if he chose (or propose that one of the projects take on) without involving the AfD process.
 * User:Starblind is voting to convert to category: a job which is obviously far easier to do while this article exists.
 * User:Saberwyn is supporting Starblind's convert-to-category vote.
 * User:FCYTravis claims to be supporting the nominator but is actually supporting Starblind's convert-to-category vote.
 * User:EdJohnston is supporting Starblind, adding the (surely wrong) comment that it is a bad thing that we should debate the completeness problem and the criteria for inclusion problem, and the (definitely wrong) comment that lists should not contain red links.
 * No actual vote from me at this point, but I will just comment that where actual work is needed on something, just bringing it to AfD should not be seen as a cheap-and-cheerful solution. AndyJones 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment. While you are disagreeing with lots of people, it's not clear what your actual position is. It would be easy for the closing administrator to userfy the list for an editor who was willing to create a category for it. Your motion for a 'speedy close' suggests that you feel the result is unanimous, but we don't know your vote. EdJohnston 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm not making my position clear. I don't necessarily disagree with anyone above (except for a couple of side-issues in EdJohnston's vote). All I'm saying is that IF everybody believes what they have written above THEY are not actually voting to delete this article. They are using the word "delete" but are actually voting to keep it so that various work can be done on it. (Sorry, I don't know if that's actually much clearer!) AndyJones 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I decline to have you redefine my vote; I'm still voting Delete. The article is a mess because the concept of the article is a mess, not because insufficient work has been done on it. However I suggest you should go on record as voting 'Keep'. EdJohnston 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not so bothered about this that I want to stay around to debate it, to be honest. I've unbolded my speedy close comment to make it clearer that it wasn't a vote, more an observation. AndyJones 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. And yes, I am quoting from WP:LISTCRUFT. Suriel1981 23:28, 31 March 2007 (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.