Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Formula One World Championship

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. I see a consensus for deletion but not a consensus for salting or changing this page into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Formula One World Championship

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been created then BLARed three times. I disagree with the BLAR as there is no suitable target, certainly Formula One makes no mention of 2024 except for mention of a tv rights deal. As for the article, it consists entirely of speculation based on existing long-term contracts, and no sources I can find discuss the season itself, but only speculation or articles about aspirations etc (eg [1] which may belong on team/biography articles but are not enough to warrant an article about this season). The season is simply too far away to support an article (noting that 2023 Formula One World Championship only left draftspace permanently in August). So I think deletion or draftification is suitable here (and not redirection). A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Evidently no reason for creation. Also support SALTing the article until mid-2023. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT until some time next year - Simply WP:TOOSOON for an article on a subject about which far too little information exists for it to meet the WP:GNG. If for some unexpected reason the subject becomes notable earlier than might be expected then a request can be made to the admins to unsalt the page. All this article would be likely to do for the next few months is attract speculative edits or information better suited for other articles (ie. contract information can go on driver biographies). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Neutral on whether this should redirect to Formula One#Future. Since this season falls in the middle of a planned regulation cycle there is particularly little to say about it until closer to the time, but the redirect isn't inherently unhelpful. 2026 Formula One World Championship would make more sense as a protected redirect to Formula One#Future. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR to Formula One#Future and Fully Protect the redirect until mid-2023. 2024 is not all that far off, and it seems reasonable to believe that people will search for information on the 2024 season. In my view it is more helpful to redirect readers to useful information about the future plans of Formula One, presumably why they would search for such a topic, than to entirely delete the redirect. Additionally, Draftify the existing article content (this should also be done if the page is deleted and SALTed as proposed by User:HumanBodyPiloter5). ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 03:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have Redirected this page once, you lot keep bringing it back, simply put, it needs to go. NASCAR has a policy where they don't do anything for the next years page until about August of the year current, so for example they wouldn't allow a 2023 Page until August because most deals and the calendar is released from August onwards. F1 is a global sport, much bigger than NASCAR, and frankly if we can't even get this right, and allow pages two years early, then we are really ruining ourselves. Think about what I've just said, and maybe lets implement a system for pages where they can only be applied in August of the current year, otherwise, we just get too many pages to manage, and there's no explicit reason for them to be there ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, ConcordeAAIB, I am unsure who your statement is intended to be addressing. I don't disagree with your broader reasoning, I just find the phrasing somewhat confusing. The only contributor to this discussion who has "brought the page back" from being a redirect is the user who nominated the page for discussion. Am I missing something? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you referring to? And why do we need to think about what you've just said when we're all in agreement? Indeed, three of us have supported SALTing. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I restored the article not because I think that it is an article which should be kept (as should be clear from me nominating it for deletion) but because I disagree with the BLAR(s) since I don't think it is a suitable redirect (and probably it should never have been BLARed even a second time but taken to AFD when it was restored). WP:BLAR suggests AFD is the place to sort these matters out. I firmly oppose the above suggested redirect target of Formula One#Future as there is no mention of the 2024 season in that section. I have no particular opinion on whether to salt. It is probably unnecessary since the article has never been recreated out of process: anyone is free to revert a BLAR, and a draftify result here makes it much clearer that this shouldn't be recreated, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. A7V2 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had completely missed that you had restored the article from a redirect just to nominate it at AfD. That to me seems confusing and quite ridiculous. Why would you have not just left it BLARed and listed it at WP:RfD instead? Reverting the redirect back to an article just to nominate it for AfD makes no sense, and in this case has only ended up distracting discussion participants with answering the question of "should the article exist" (upon which it seems the answer is no, otherwise it would not have been previously BLARed) when the question the discussion ought to have been focusing on was "should this redirect to anywhere" upon which there is some clear division, but not a clear consensus (yet) since that's not what we were asked. Maybe I'm missing something about some obscure technicality in the processes, but if you don't think an article should exist, why would you put it back just to point out how it shouldn't exist? That seems rather counterintuitive and silly. Though at this point that toothpaste is out of the tube in this particular case, so whatever.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark with this comment and reverting a BLAR to start an AfD is a completely normal thing to do, in which case my opinion on it can be disregarded and I'd much appreciate being educated. Ignore this everyone, I'm a dumbass. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 10:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLAR: If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you. Striking this comment. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Formula One#Future. This is WP:TOOSOON to create a page considering the 2023 season has not even started yet and the 2022 season is still in progress. Due to persistent edit-warring, I would also support page protection of this redirect until 1 July 2023 (and no later than that date). Frank Anchor 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way WP:TOOSOON, this is a series of contracts. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE apply here, as listing these contracts is unencylopedic in nature, until we get closer to this contracts actually being in force. I also oppose a redirect (perhaps even strongly oppose) as Formula One#Future doesn't discuss this season in any way, shape or form. SSSB (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no point in keeping the article now.--Island92 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think we can all agree that the page should be deleted. However, there are two issues to further discuss here. First, I felt that the 2023 page was created too late, and should've been created earlier. Second, those suggesting a redirect to Formula One#Future, that section, firstly contains details that's already happened, and second should be updated to discuss long term driver contracts, the calendar expansion etc. etc. Phoenix84621 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I strongly support adding that missing information, and maintain my previous opinion that the page should be redirected to Formula One#Future and fully protected for a limited time to prevent further page re-creation and edit warring. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the addition of contracts to Formula One#Future. The scope of this section is to outline the planned evolution of the series, and it would constitute a database (which Wikipedia is not) to list contracts there simply because the relevant season article does not exist. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.