Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McLaren MCL35


 * 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 keep. Meets Core content policies such as WP:V, and inclusion criteria such as WP:RS and WP:N. It "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As argued, the guideline TooSoon does not apply as there is appropriate content, viz: there are six reliable sources which talk directly about MCL35, which give it notability, and more detail is supplied by the McLaren website. Arguments that more detail is required are not policy passed as evidently there is enough material here for an article. SilkTork (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

McLaren MCL35

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created prematurely. There is little in the way of content directly related to the car aside from vague references to a "new concept". The article should be deleted, or at least turned into a redirect (McLaren would be the best fit). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify per nom and specifically WP:TOOSOON, we can't realistically expect this to contain any more content till February. I do oppose changing this into a redirect per WP:RFD rational #10 which will apply, if not now, in February, when the car is launched, besides its highly implausible that someone will search this article so a redirect may be unnecessary. If this does become a redirect I disagree that Mclaren is the best fit as 2020 Formula One World Championship will provide more details on the subject. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC) (draftify vote added at 10:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC))
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note that WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. Content actually does exist, McLaren already have several articles regarding who will be involved in the development and testing of the MCL35. Although the specifications of the car don't exist, a fair bit of background does. 5225C (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY SOURCES can't be used to establish notability. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not contested in the original proposal. I also note official policy states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and I believe McLaren's releases meet that criteria. The MCL35 has been covered by several independent sources that have analyzed McLaren's intentions for next year's car. I don't see an issue with the use of primary sources either. 5225C (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The only sources I have found that analysed McLaren's intentions for next year state the obvious, that Mclaren want to get quicker with the MCL35 given only a passing mention. Notability is not contested in the original proposal., yes it is, through WP:TOOSOON which discussess notability. This AfD is about MCL35 is not currently notable, although it certainly will be in the future. I believe McLaren's releases meet that criteria, no it doesn't, Mclaren's content is not reputable published, it is analysed through a secondry source which is different. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, please define "reputably". As a casual observer, I would expect reputable to mean having a good reputation. McLaren speaking about the plans for their 2020 car appears reputable to me. 5225C (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * reputable published means that content has been published by a reputbale organisation other than Mclaren. primary sources that have been reputably published refers to research papers and the like. Papers which have been written as a primary sources by researches and have been published as a primary source in a publication independent to the writters (such as a scentific journal). None of Mclarens content covers that. SSSB (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the context of this article I would say McLaren themselves are a reliable source for the claims we are discussing, which are not easily challenged or misinterpreted. 5225C (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also to point out again that WP:TOOSOON is not policy. The original proposal states that "There is little in the way of content..", which does not challenge notability. 5225C (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides those are just list of emplyees who are involved in car delevlopment, MCL35 is just mentioned in passing as it is the next Mclaren project. A fair bit of background doesn't exist. The only MCL35 specific content I have found is that it will be designed with a 'new' approach with no indication of that this approch may be or any other specific information. SSSB (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Content I have found does include employees involved with car development, states that Alonso will be involved in the testing process, and that the goal is to reduce the gap to the top three teams in time for the engine switch. I think that can count for a few paragraphs. 5225C (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you linked to and/or added tose links with content in the article I could be convinced to change my stance with on. Claiming that you have found these sources doesn't count for much if you don't provide them. But as I hinted a out above this is general information about Mclaren and their competiveness in F1, it doesn't sound car specific. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully intend to expand the page. I plan to work under the impression that McLaren's goals for the car would be car-specific. 5225C (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again supporting a keep motion. The original proposal for deletion claimed there was too little content for the article to exist, however, content and sources exist and I am yet to see a reason why the article should be deleted, since the "lack of content" complaint has been satisfied with solid information. 5225C (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't vote twice, if you have something else to say you use Comment not Keep SSSB (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draft This article is definitely created far too ahead of time WP:TOOSOON, given the car has yet to even be teased, let alone launched, and this entire article seems to rely solely on statements to the media, which ultimately may not be true, even if its a press release, and these claims to the media can only be validated, when the car is unveiled in February. TJSRX (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again I need to point out that WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. Information exists, and McLaren have been very eager to discuss their aims for the car. Whether or not those aims come to fruition is not a deciding factor in whether an article should or should not exist. To quote from WP:SPECULATION, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...]", and "It is appropriate to report discussion [...] of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Considering this policy, I can't support a delete motion. 5225C (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ''"McLaren have been very eager to discuss their aims for the car."
 * Let me guess: to go faster? It's almost as if they're a racing team ... Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. More specifically, sub-one second gap to the top three. That might seem obvious, but it's how they want to do that that has given the basis of an article. Sarcasm doesn't help with the discussion. Your deletion proposal complains about a lack of content. There's content (it's on the page). Simply saying that "to go faster" is obvious does not put into question the content of the article. Based on actual policy (see quotes above), it is appropriate to report expected development and that is what I hope will continue with this article. 5225C (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * there may be content, sure, but there is little substance. Case in point:
 * ''"reflecting the change in design philosophy"
 * What does that actually mean? What was the "design philosophy" to begin with and how has it changed? The article does not say. Likewise:
 * ''"changes tested in 2018 as an indication of Key moving the MCL35 closer to the rear design seen on the RB15 and STR14"
 * What were the changes that were tested in 2018? Why weren't they introduced to the 2019 car? Why is the rear design of the RB15 and STR14 significant, and how does McLaren expect that will benefit them?
 * Like I said, there's content, but no substance to it. It appears that the "Design and development" section has been added to the article to pad it out and justify its continued existence. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you did no specify whether you meant content or substance. But, in fact, I'm inclined to agree with you. Canseco's forecast should be elaborated on and combined with the snippet on design philosophy. That would not only add "substance" but ground the claims in reality. 5225C (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you did no specify whether you meant content or substance. But, in fact, I'm inclined to agree with you. Canseco's forecast should be elaborated on and combined with the snippet on design philosophy. That would not only add "substance" but ground the claims in reality. 5225C (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft works. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? 5225C (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft as it is WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON is not policy, as I've noted above. Content exists. 5225C (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON is an essay, sure. But really every time someone says it is TOOSOON they are just saying that it doesn't meet GNG yet, which is the crux of the essay. Essays on notability basically just often cite GNG and are often completely reliant on policies and guidelines, as this is.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't WP:GNG cited instead? I would say that the MCL35 article contains many of the stated requirements. 5225C (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2019 (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.