Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Formula One Constructors


 * 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 and redirect to List of Formula One constructors. I don't see a consensus to keep. I am going to redirect to List of Formula One constructors post-deletion; since there's a lot of discussion about how this is duplicative of that, I think it's useful to retain a redirect to catch any searchers. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Formula One Constructors

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely fails WP:SIGCOV - sources that cover this are exclusively WP:SPS. Also note that Wikipedia has a template which does a constructor timeline. (I had done a WP:PROD but the article creater removed the tag making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.) SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.  SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Care to link to the template that provides a constructor timeline? I can't immediately find it. SpinningSpark 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979) and Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present). It's not exactly the same - but close enough. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that these templates are not transcluded anywhere into article space. Have they ever been?  It's not so surprising then, that a timeline has been recreated on a standalone page. SpinningSpark 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom gives two reasons for delete. The first is lack of SIGCOV.  The book Formula 1: the Official History is not previewable but its blurb includes "This book charts the... arrival and departure of manufacturers". That's a synonym for timeline.  There is also Formula 1: Car by Car also not previewable but a publication that covers all cars in a period is going to cover the constructor of each car.  I'm pretty sure there are more, but not online accessible.  The second reason given is that timeline templates already exist.  They do, but they are not transcluded into article space so they may as well not exist.  Some kind of merge may be in order though. SpinningSpark 19:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * that is all well and good, but the what those books contain is present in List of Formula One constructors. As far as I can therefore tell, this arguement at best supports merging this visual timeline into that list. SSSB (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the 1950-59 book in the same series ("Formula 1: Car by car") and it is not written as a timeline of constructors in anything resembling this article. It is divided into "superchapters" by season, with "subchapters" discussing the season from the perspective of each entrant. This kind of thing belongs in season and constructor/team articles. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge - There is nothing meaningful in this article that isn't already in List of Formula One constructors, in particular List of Formula One constructors. I think create an anchor there (eg something like "current constructors") and redirect there. Perhaps some of the text can be carried over too, so perhaps this could be considered a merge. I also agree with the nom regarding significant coverage: there are many books which give a kind of overview/timeline of the cars used in Formula 1, but not really the constructors, and not in the way that this article does. But this is a moot point if we redirect. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed looking at the history of List of Formula One constructors that the duplicate of the visual timeline from this article was added to List of Formula One constructors less than 24 hours before this nom was made, and likely you didn't notice it/know about it. That edit probably should be tagged as copying within wikipedia, and so the article being discussed here probably needs to be kept (at least as a redirect) for attribution purposes. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As both are done by the same editor (based on the page history) this doesn't need to be kept per WP:NOATT (If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary.) SSSB (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is one other contributor to the page with one edit besides editors adding deletion templates. So as it stands at the moment WP:ATTSIT, WP:PROMERGE, and WP:MAD apply and the page history must be kept for attribution purposes even if redirected. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a segment of the page was copied over, none of the content of the edit from the other used were carried over (with the exception of the removal of spaces which was effectily a Help:Dummy edit change), or doesn't that matter? SSSB (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the contributions of the second editor came after the content was copied over ( 23:22, 8 October 2021 and 18:09, 8 October 2021‎ respectively). So the second editors contributions aren't transcluded onto List of Formula One constructors in any case. SSSB (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably if we aren't sure then better to err on the side of putting a dummy edit or something acknowledging it. And I definitely stand by my suggestion to redirect this rather than outright delete. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article really has no purpose, everything is covered in List of Formula One constructors. BMB YT 500000(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have edited the page since this discussion began, users here may want to review these changes. I implemented Spinningspark's suggestion to include the constructor history templates, so they are now in article space. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what I had in mind. You now have two timelines in the same article covering the same ground with possibly contradictory information. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your point, bringing those into the page actually makes it less useful as it is showing related by distinct data. I will revert my edit Vanteloop (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The information isn't contradictary at all. The timeline is more accuratly described as a timeline of the constructor names that teams used. i.e. the Alpine F1 Team have existed since 1981. From 1981-'85 they were the consturctor Toleman, from 1986-'01 they were the constructor Renault,..., from 2021 they were the constructor Alpine. As shown by the "Antecedent teams" column in the list. SSSB (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The first reason given is SIGCOV. This has been adressed already so I will not retread that ground. The second is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, but the the content in question is distinct. They are showing two seperate things. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCONTENT was the argument you made when you removed PROD - I haven't made that argument, you did. The content in Timeline of Formula One Constructors isn't distinct to the content at List of Formula One constructors at all. It's just represented in a different way. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's simply not true. For just one example List of Formula One constructors shows the Mercedes team as being in F1 in 1950. This is different to Timeline of Formula One Constructors, which doesn't show any Mercedes involvement until 2010. Neither are incorrect, but the pages are showing two distinct sets of information. One is showing a sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body, the other is showing a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity. It is correct to say Mercedes did not exist before 2010 in the first context, and incorrect in the second. Just because there is WP:OTHERCONTENT related to F1 manufacturers doesn't mean this page isn't distinct, and notable (as covered above) Vanteloop (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it simply is true. If you look at List of Formula One constructors you will see that it shows both Mercedes as "sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body" and Mercedes as "a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity." (the latter through the "Antecedent teams" column of the table and the various footnotes). So there is nothing in the timeline which isn't already in the list (espically given you put the timeline in the list anyway) SSSB (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult here or go round in circles but if you look at that page, the team listed as Mercedes is shown to have competed in the 1954 season. This is true for the information on that page, but not true for the other page. As mentioned in my previous comment, this is because they are showing two similar (but distinct!) sets of information. Furthermore, Mercedes is not considered a 'former constructor' on that page etc etc. I agree that by adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page as Spinningspark noted so maybe that should be removed. Again I apologise if i'm being difficult (I am new) but its just plainly not true that the two articles are discussing the same thing (although they are very similar I agree!) Vanteloop (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page[,] it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page... - on the contrary. It makes more sense to put them in the same article - because then we can clearly explain why there is a contradiction. Otherwise readers have a different impression depending on which article they happen to be looking at. Putting them into different articles makes the water muddier. The team listed as Mercedes did compete in F1 in 1954-55. Mercedes is not a former constructor by any definition. They are both discussing the same thing - which constructors/teams competed and when - they just take different approaches. So it makes more sense to bundle them together - where we can properly explain the difference. SSSB (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself . The history of the Mercedes team begins with Tyrell as shown there, therefore the Mercedes team of 1954 is no longer on the grid. Again I'm sorry if this is just me being a pedant but I feel we're not making much progress here so I will wait for other contributions Vanteloop (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself - that's not what the source says at all. It just points out that the only similarity between the 1950s Mercedes and the 2010-present Mercedes is the ownership and name and that the current Mercecdes team has origins with Tyrrell. Saying that this makes the 1950's Mercedes a "former" team is then your WP:OR. It only proves that there may be justification in WP:MERGEing the articles, rather than an out-and-out deletion. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As stated above i dont feel we're making progress so I will wait for other contributors. Please stop reverting the edits on the page which quote the official Formula 1 source there is no need to take to editing the page for disagreements here. Please bear in mind WP:BLUDGEON Vanteloop (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * CommentI've seen mention of the templates (Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979), Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)) and see that they were added then removed from this article. There was a discussion last year with clear consensus that these templates aren't suitable for use, and I think they should be deleted but that is a separate discussion. In any case, they contain too many issues to use as they are now. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, as you say the templates have been removed and won't be re-added based on the linked discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a content fork. There is nothing meaningful here that isn’t already presented elsewhere.Tvx1 02:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as information contained in this article already exists at List of Formula One constructors GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, we don't need a standalone article dedicated just to a timeline. Arguably a case of WP:NOSTATS. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.