Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World RX of South Africa


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

World RX of South Africa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. The article has only one line that duplicates the 2017 season article and a blank table. The event may be cancelled prior November. I didn't see any sense to keep article now. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event is less than 8 months away and is almost certain to go ahead. There is no issue of WP:CRYSTAL as WRX consistently updates construction to the Killarney circuit on social media. It'll be no sooner you delete the article than it re-appears again. It'll also leave a redlink on the main page. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not certain. For example: Rally China was cancelled less than one month before the start. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The WRC Promoter never really made an effort to keep the public across their progress though, did they? We're going off the information we have, which isn't CRYSTAL or TOOSOON, as I have explained to you before. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The coverage of the construction progress doesn't prevent unseen circumstances (extreme weather conditions, lack of funding, etc). Once again, does your article feature anything that doesn't feature the season article? For now all information we had that the World RX of South Africa will be held in November and it has been already mentioned in the season article, what the sense in the World RX of South Africa article right now? Corvus tristis (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If anything, unforseen circumstances is crystal balling - as that is something that we don't know about; however we do know that this event is so far going to go ahead. So if that's a problem now, why was Rally China included on the 2016 WRC schedule? Why are any of these events still in tables if they might not happen? Furthermore, where was this argument when the World RX of Latvia article was created with the same sort of time difference to it's race? Clearly consistency means nothing to you. If anything, I see this as a pathetic attempt at a vendetta for my challenge to your Formula-related pages. Seeing as your interest in rallycross has only been piqued since then, I can see why this is a problem for you. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why you can't answer simple question? What does contain World RX of South Africa article which doesn't contain the season article? Blank table? I have no problems with schedules, as it is the certain thing, and in the case of cancellation we adding a notification that it was cancelled. If I have noticed World RX of Latvia article in 2015, then article would have received the same AFD nomination. Also why since Latvian event was held it is so hard to you add some wording and references to the article, or at least change future tense to past? Why you are so obsessed with future events and blank tables if you can't write something different from the season article? Your actions are the clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Also if we look to the history of nominations for deletions of your articles at your talk page we will see that the quality and the necessity of your articles is not only my concern. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me try a new tack, and maybe you'll understand this way. Go to the article Newcastle 500. Put that up for deletion. It has no information that is really otherwise necessary to the article or isn't already repeated in the 2017 Supercars Championship one. It's the same amount of time away as this event. I'm confident enough in the response you'll get that you should understand where I am coming from in this article. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why it's so problematical to you to answer my direct questions or at least improve quality of the article to Newcastle 500 level? Corvus tristis (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument for you to use simply because you clearly hold a double standard. You refuse to even consider deleting an article that is in a very similar state simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. If anything, the Newcastle 500 is even less important than this one as this one is in reference to a World Championship. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that you can talk about anything but not about that you were questioned. We are in the space where we should talking about nominated article not about Newcastle 500. My questions are so hard for you? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am answering it, you don't understand it. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, because your way of answering is way too remote from topic. I talk about Thomas and you talk about Jonas. Newcastle 500 at least has content different from the season article. You are just squabbling, instead of improving your article to show the notability of the article in the exact moment. also not sure that the article notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your level of perception. It answers enough questions about you as to how qualified you are for editing Wikipedia when you clearly can't put two and two together. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another insult instead of reasonable arguments. Another confirmation of your cultural level and constructiveness. I have no more questions to such churl as you. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It also speaks volumes that you responded to my 'insults'. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep! The event is going to take place and it's nonsense to be worried about Wikipedia space used half a year in advance. People should better concentrate on using their time by producing or improving articles instead of torpedoing other users' work by deletion requests with long and senseless discussions. RX-Guru (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can answer simple question. What does feature World RX of South Africa that doesn't feature season article? What is the necessity in the line that duplicates the season article right now? If it was possible to somehow improve this article now than I wouldn't make the nominat queion. If you disagree that is impossible than improve. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep! per RX-Guru. Makes no sense deleting an article that will be created a few months after, dispending an huge amount of time (and also extra WP space) that could be used to make something usefull.Rpo.castro (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have forthcoming events on Wikipedia too. In all, unless it's being cancelled, it's too early to nominate an article for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (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.