Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. bd2412 T 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was already deleted through an AFD discussion with unanimous consensus. At that point already the "rivalry" was inactive. A really can't see what has changed since then that makes this subject suitable for having an article. Tvx1 13:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is plenty of evidence that this is a notable rivalry (just flick through the citations), as unlike the previous article that existed and was deleted (which you seem to not realise is entirely different to this one) there are various reputable sources and news publications which describe and analyse the rivalry in-depth. If that is your only argument for deletion (that it does not meet notability requirements) then I disagree, as does the evidence and coverage referenced in the current article, which I will reiterate, is entirely different from the previously deleted article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Formulaonewiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given by the 'unanimous consensus' in the previous ADF discussion, which was, and I'll say it again, a completely different article to this one, was that the subject matter was not notable. However, this is simply not true. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and just a quick search reveals a huge number of articles covering the rivalry. Just a few of the many examples can be found here, here, here, here and here as well as just a quick glance through the 50 citations used in the article itself. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is currently being discussed at the F1 WikiProject because of concerns over the neutrality of sources, even those that come from normally-reliable publications. Large parts of the article rely on sources from the British media, and there is a question of bias. For example, Hamilton caused controversy recently, but the only reporting done on the subject by a major British-based source is an opinion piece defending him. I also have serious WP:NPOV concerns about the article; for instance, the lead goes out of its way to portray Rosberg as the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the underdog who got through on sheer grit; the article arguably favours Hamilton. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.111.7, your observations seem to confirm that the subject is significantly covered in reliable sources, even if their opinion goes against your own. And as WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", that supports a keep rather than a delete. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DeFacto. Surely your observations are evidence that the article content is notable. How about we work together to improve the article instead of just deleting it entirely because of your WP:NPOV concerns? Let's be productive, not destructive. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll be constructive if articles are necessary. And I don't see how this article is necessary. Especially when Prost/Senna or Schumacher/Hill don't have dedicated articles. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the notability test. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a policy-based argument has been made—there are NPOV issues present and some of the sources are questionable. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not deletion policy reasons for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), they are trivial "because I don't like it"-type reasons, which, even if it was agreed that they actually existed, are easily fixable. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV issues stemming from the sources fits DEL-REASON. This article is not neutral; it clearly takes Hamilton's side. The sources used are not neutral; they clearly take Hamilton's side. There has been no attempt to find balance in the sources—look at the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: it takes the time to give weight to Niki Lauda's defence of Hamilton (without explaining why Lauda though Hamilton was in the right), but does not explore any criticism of Hamilton's actions. Or look at the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, which strongly implies Rosberg deliberately ruined Hamilton's qualifying lap, but only offers "several pundits" opinions' as sources. Or look at the language used throughout the article: "a perfect start", "a thrilling race", etc, which is not language suited to purpose. Or the analysis I did of a lead paragraph here. I read this article and all I see is a one-sided representation of the subject which barely meets the notability guidelines, if at all. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching rather a lot with that 'analysis'. Seems like you're also pushing your own agenda/POV on the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's there in black and white. Hamilton did something that was subject to criticism at the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix. However, the article only offers Lauda's defence of him. It should also offer the criticism of him so that the reader understands the issue. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.108.197, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, let's be productive and improve the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I think deleting the article is the most productive thing to do. The time and energy that would be spent rewriting it could be better used developing more important articles. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was it being a "productive thing to do" part of the deletion criteria? --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks WP:BLP. I could go through and remove everything that is not neutral because it is clearly pro-Hamilton, but the article would be little more than a stub. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.108.197, I can't see where you think it breaks BLP. Please give one specific paragraph or sentence as an example. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto — WP:BLP says the following:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies"

Those three core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. I believe this article breaks BLP because it fails NPOV, as evident in this paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix:

When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Niki Lauda spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right."

This breaks NPOV because it only speaks in support of Hamilton. It offers a single opinion supporting Hamilton's actions, but does not offer any justification for that opinion. The article really should address the following questions:

  1. Who is Niki Lauda (it is the first time the article mentions him) and why do his words carry weight?
  2. Why did Lauda think Hamilton was in the right?
  3. Who, if anyone, spoke against Hamilton, and what were their reasons?
  4. How did Hamilton and Rosberg address the issue in public?
  5. How did Hamilton's decision affect his relationship with Rosberg?
  6. What measures (if any) did the team take to manage them in future?
  7. How did those measures (or lack thereof) influence the relationship?
  8. How would Hamilton slowing to allow Rosberg through affect his race, and what did Hamilton think the effect would be?
  9. What did the team expect would happen if Hamilton let Rosberg through as planned?

As it is, the article details an incident in which Hamilton disobeyed team orders, and his decision affected the race result. In providing a defence from Lauda, the reader can infer that his decision was controversial (why else would Lauda need to defend him?). However, the article only provides a defence of Hamilton and so the reader may come to the conclusion that Hamilton's actions were justified. That to me breaks NPOV because it is leading the reader to a conclusion: that Hamiltion defied team orders, got a better result out of it, and that he was completely justified in doing so. 1.144.108.211 (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NPOV is not a delete rationale, at least not primarily. This rivalry clearly passes WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NPOV might not be a primary reason for deletion, but this article is at least in part biographical, and NPOV is a cornerstone of BLP. The majority of the sources used in the article come from British publications despite the rivalry being between a Brit and a German, and I have concerns that their coverage is one-sided. For example, Hamilton made some comments recently that were controversial, but Autosport—one of the major publications used by WP:F1—did not report on it. They rarely report on any criticism of British drivers? How can we say this article meets GNG when the sources are one-sided and of questionable neutrality? 1.144.108.118 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP 1.144.108.118, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. You should go to the article talkpage with any reliable sources that give a differing view, and argue the case for an adjustment of the POV balance there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP 1.144.108.118, the argument you are making about NVOP is clearly a content discussion, and not relevant here. Additionally, you are wrong in saying Autosport did not cover the controversial comments, as shown here. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have completely ignored my extensive discussion of how the article fails NPOV. 1.129.105.118 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not ignored, just disagreed with. An unsupported challenge to the balance of a small portion of the content is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable subject, it is something that needs to be discussed on its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an example of moving the goalposts. You asked for "one specific paragraph or sentence as an example" of how the article breaks BLP. I did exactly that, demonstrating how the article fails NPOV and by extension BLP. But apparently that's no longer good enough. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, I wanted clarification of what your idea of NPOV was, and having seen it, I am not persuaded that you have a case. You are comparing what's written in the article with your personal views and interpretation of history, and not with the views of notable commentators via other reliable sources - that's OR/SYNTH on your part, and not NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLaren MCL33 stops recounting the car's performance after the 2018 British Grand Prix. Would you agree that there are gaps in the article? If so, how is that different to this article? Niki Lauda offers an opinion which the article repeats, but does not explain. Surely you agree that this is a gap in the article. Do you not see how this might create an NPOV issue? Especially considering which pages link to the article; it is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article and mostly just lifts content from there. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if some points are incomplete and even if that does render them as non-NPOV, that is an entirely different matter to the article being irreconcilably non-NPOV and requiring deletion. Take the points you are concerned about to the article's talkpage, along with any supporting reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont see any signs this rivalry is notable. Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title. Maybe the sources mention a rivalry (which might be logical as they were teammates). This discussion on this page is far to detailed to be encyclopedic and the comments above by both sides of this looks like WP:BLUDGEON. Maybe if there is a couple of google books entries that chronicle the rivalry, but if we are just going to us industry dribble about two drivers this is far too low a bar for inclusion in wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: one source does not automatically make a subject notable enough to have an article of its own. 1.129.107.159 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well obviously; nobody is saying that. All I did was point out that the statement "Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title" was wrong.--Formulaonewiki (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, there is one source, not zero. I corrected that. Every F1 teammate is a rival of his other teammate. Shall we create rivalry pages for all F1 teammate pairs? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are more that have rivalry in the title, and even more than that with rivalry in the body of the citation. I said the "the first source of the [...] article" includes 'rivalry', I didn't say it was the only source, did I? And no, we should not create rivalry pages for all team-mate pairs, no-one suggesting that. The only time we should create a page for team-mate pairs is if there are multiple sources which give evidence of the notability of said pair. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, there is no dedicated article for the Senna and Prost rivalry. Unlike Hamilton and Rosberg, there were accusations and admissions that Senna and Prost had deliberately crashed into one another to settle World Championships.
This article, however, consistently takes Hamilton's side. In Hungary 2014, the article defends Hamilton's decision to defy team orders; in Monaco 2014, the article criticises Rosberg's actions without sources; in Spain 2016, the article clearly suggests Rosberg was responsible for the contact (by pointing out the speed difference) despite the stewards' ruling.
Between the lack of sources, the inconsistent approach to notability compared to other similar subjects, lack of links to any other articles, and the clear bias that the article shows, where is the redeeming value of the page? 1.129.109.94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The existence, or lack thereof, for an article concerning the rivalry between Senna and Prost is not relevant to this discussion as explained at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.
(2) Any NPOV of this article does form part of the criteria for deletion. That is something to be discussed on the article's talk page.
(3) There simply is not a 'lack of sources', as I've already explained WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't relevant, links to other articles are plentiful and NPOV is not criteria for deletion.
--Formulaonewiki (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly explained—and as you have repeatedly ignored—this article contains biographical elements (it is largely biographical), and so is subject to WP:BLP. WP:NPOV is a key part of BLP. Given the obvious and extensive bias—the article clearly favours Hamilton—it fails NPOV, which means it fails BLP and by failing BLP, it satisfies a criteria for deletion. Could you explain how this article does not fail NPOV? You can start with this part:

"Several pundits made suggestions of foul play and drew comparisons with Michael Schumacher's deliberate crash at La Rascasse in 2006, but the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing."

Despite suggesting that several commentators made the comparison, the article does not provide a single source to support the claim. And without detailing why the stewards cleared Rosberg, the implication is that Rosberg deliberately crashed despite the stewards seeing nothing wrong with it.

"links to other articles are plentiful"

Only one page links to the article. It's practically an orphan. 1.129.109.101 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, remove or rework the contentious material, NPOV does not form part of the criteria for deletion of the whole article. I don't understand why you keep giving examples of NPOV here when I'm not refuting that it's not written perfectly, and it's just not relevant. Also, read what you said: You said 'links to other articles', not 'links from other articles'. It's not a moot point; it isn't an orphan. Either way, that is also not relevant to these deletion discussion. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be deleted on BLP grounds, though. One can even be speedily deleted on such grounds in extreme cases. Nevertheless Jtbobwaysf and the participants raise a fair point though. The drivers have spent ten simultaneous seasons in Formula One, yet this article only deals with a mere four of them. If their "rivalry" is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article. Incidents that relate to one individual race can be dealt with in the articles on those races and more lasting things in the season articles and the drivers' articles. Just what makes this more important than Hamilton-Bottas rivalry, Hamilton–Button rivalry or even Hamilton–Alonso rivalry? And what with Schumacher-Hill rivalry, Schumacher-Villeneuve rivalry, Schumacher-Häkkinen rivalry, Schumacher-Montoya rivalry, Schumacher-Alonso rivalry?Tvx1 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"remove or rework the contentious material"
I could, but the article would almost certainly be deleted for a sheer lack of content.
"This is just a sample of some of the many sources covering the subject."
Do you have anything more international in its flavour? A lot of the sources you are drawing on are British and relate to a British driver. As I have outlined, I think there are genuine concerns about partisan reporting. If only British sources call it a rivalry, is it really a rivalry?
"If their 'rivalry' is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article."
Taken in context, I have to wonder if the rivalry was fabricated—Mercedes have absolutely dominated for the past four years and the racing is often boring (least of all following the brilliance of 2010 and 2012). Building up strong competition into a "rivalry" is a way of getting bums into seats. If we compare Rosberg and Hamilton to the sport's benchmark rivalry—Senna and Prost—it's pretty pale. 1.144.110.123 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already stated, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a convincing argument and not relevant to this discussion. But to answer your question, what makes it 'more important' — or more specifically, notable and worthy of an article — is the number of sources (which are evident in the article, but have also been highlighted in the discussions above) covering, examining and documenting the rivalry. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of what you have said sounds like a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article and is loaded with NPOV issues. It's borderline WP:CRUFT. You haven't even tried to demonstrate the notability of the subject; you just assume "oh, there's a few sources out there so it must be notable enough for an article" without even critically thinking about the sources. It's pretty obvious that you're a Hamilton fan and the article is a defence of him; every time a controversy is discussed, the article goes out of its way to explain why he did nothing wrong. This article has no redeeming value. 1.144.110.104 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also have a read of WP:IDLI too. You are making a ridiculous set of wild and just plainly wrong accusations. What on earth do you mean I haven't even tried? I have literally provided a list of news articles from reputable sources that all pass WP:RS, all of which have been critically considered. I have provided evidence in accordance with the notability guidelines as laid out in WP:PERSON, while you a contributing no more than meaningless and unjustified opinion and penning conspiracy. Also, while as you are enjoying conspiracy so much, it's worth pointing out how your edits from that IP look very much like sock puppetry. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I have literally provided a list of news articles from reputable sources that all pass WP:RS, all of which have been critically considered."
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the article would be balanced. I raised concerns about the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian GP days ago which you haven't even bothered to address beyond claiming that you don't need to address it.
"it's worth pointing out how your edits from that IP look very much like sock puppetry"
My situation and why I edit from IP addresses is well-documented. I don't need to justify it to you here because it has nothing to do with this AfD. 1.129.106.104 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement makes no sense. I'm not disputing the POV of the article. What I've done on this page is provide a list of reputable sources that all pass WP:RS. I have proven that the article subject is notable, but has nothing to do with the state of NPOV in the current article.
  • Once again you are making strange links: I don't need to address your point on the Hungarian Grand Prix because I do not disagree with what you have said, as I've already stated. You make a valid point in terms of NPOV, I only questioned it's relevance to the discussion for deletion.
  • Whatever your justification for using multiple IPs to edit, it would avoid issues like the appearance of pump priming if you sign off from whatever IP addresses you use with at least something consistent that links a comment from you from one IP to another; otherwise it is unclear which IP edits are yours and which are not. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a list of WP:RS for this article. By definition, you need to exclude those that are passing mention or simply refer to the rivalry as a definition. Thus how many top quality mainstream RS exist (nyt, bbc, etc) that actually have a book or news piece that covers the rivalry. I think you provided one (low quality industry rag that had the rivalry in the subject) above and another editor noted this article is essentially an orphan. Is there any real justification to keep it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News:
The official Formula One website:
ESPN:
The Telegraph:
There have already been examples given of sources that are not just 'low quality industry rags', but all these ones I've just given are more than acceptable under WP:RS. This is just a sample of some of the many sources covering the subject. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 15:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll make a start by analysing the first few articles I provided:

  1. BBC News: Lewis Hamilton v Nico Rosberg: Childhood friends to arch rivals
  2. BBC News: Lewis Hamilton has the speed but Nico Rosberg has the stability
  3. BBC News: David Coulthard: Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry fascinating
  4. BBC News: "Mercedes rivalry will be challenging"
  5. BBC News: Lewis & Nico: rivals from the start

These articles are all from BBC News, a secondary, independent source; all articles are 'published' from a well-established and reputable news agency which directly concerns the article's subject (explicitly referring to and describing the 'rivalry' between the drivers), not just mentions it in passing, with elaborations and accounts of various incidents occurring between the pair and the history which stretches back over two decades. They also contain direct quotes and analysis from experts within the sport such as Toto Wolff and David Coulthard. They conform with WP:RS and WP:V and therefore plainly demonstrate that the article exceeds the threshold for notability and should not be deleted as such. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To offer an alternative point of view, this article is largely biographical; unlike most biographies, it focuses on two people and only four years of their respective careers. Nevertheless, it is biographical and thus WP:BLP applies. A key part of BLP is WP:NPOV and this article fails NPOV—and thus breaks BLP. Take, for instance, the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: the article makes it clear that Lewis Hamilton defied the team's orders and offers a source in which someone (whose authority is never defined) defends him as having done nothing wrong. However, the article does not provide any alternative (if Hamilton needed defending, someone must have criticised him, but this is absent from the article) and nor does it substantiate the defence of him (why, exactly, did he do no wrong?). This is just one example of NPOV issues in the article; there is a clear, conscious bias in favour of Hamilton. His failings are downplayed while Nico Rosberg's are exaggerated. Formulaonewiki has made no attempt to address this (beyond claiming he does not need to) and has instead been eager to point out that the sources provided meet WP:RS and WP:VER, but those sources are cherry-picked. In writing the article, he has only chosen sources that present Hamilton in a positive manner. These NPOV issues are so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator has asked for analysis of sources provided, which you have not done. You have instead repeated the exact points you made earlier, and once again are making edits from multiple different IP addresses with no attempts to make any indication that it is the same user.
I have rewritten the contentious sections you highlighted in order to achieve NPOV, and so it should no longer be an issue. It must be pointed out how much you are exaggerating the extent of NPOV issues, which in reality only concern a couple of the on track incidents, in saying they are "so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it". Regardless, they are fixed now and therefore there should be no problem with WP:NPOV, even if it were relevant to the deletion discussion. —Formulaonewiki (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? Not even close. The entire article needs to be rewritten. You haven't even tried to introduce a range of sources. This article is about a rivalry between a German and a Briton, but the majority of sources are British sources. You need a wider range for balance, given the partisan reporting by British sources. If all you are relying on is British sources, then the question has to be asked: is this really a rivalry, or is it just strong competition that has been exaggerated by media with an agenda?
On top of that—as has been pointed out—it only focuses on four of the ten years they were racing together in Formula 1 (and even then, only on races where there was an incident between them). Aside from a mention of their karting days, there is no coverage of any other time they were racing together. If this is, as the article suggests, a rivalry that started in their karting days, then at best the article covers about 40% of what it needs to; at worst, that number is closer to 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.242 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no inherent problem with rivalry articles of this type, and there are clearly enough suitable sources to write an WP:NPOV article (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Discussion on the neutrality of sources should proceed on the article's talk page or project page.--Pontificalibus 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would note that the article creator and deletion nominator have both made their points, and should consider whether further interventions on the same points might now be bludgeoning the process.--Pontificalibus 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is 1) an essay, 2) garbage given how often it is misused, 3) Against the spirit of WP:NOTAVOTE, since it essentially acts as a bar of involvement by a smaller number of editors in a discussion with a larger number. A better essay is needed simply pointing out that repeating yourself all the time might not be a good idea. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton–Rosberg_rivalry_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069223591"