Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One people

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. A lot of the keep !votes claim that the list "can be improved" without describing how the scope can be appropriately limited. I am willing to userfy this article for anyone who is interested in getting it up to shape. Until then, this topic is simply too vague. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One people[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. An article subject which is so vague it could included almost the entire population of Europe and little or no context to the list has been provided. Falcadore (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article provides a degree of context that Category:Formula One people doesn't provide. I think the article just needs a bit of attention - bring the "Team management" section up to date and weed out a few of the lesser lights who haven't played a significant role in Formula One (per the article's lead). Personally, I'd probably also ditch the "commentary and publicity" section (I've never understood the fascination for listing F1 TV commentators), except for possibly major figures like Murray Walker. DH85868993 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - What though is the point of listing people who perform miscellaneous roles in Formula One? --Falcadore (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful as a navigation aid for people seeking to learn more about the topic. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will readers realistically find an article with this title while navigating? When looking for team personnell they'd more likely start with team, broadcaster, List of Fomula One people seams a very unlikely search. --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was imagining people finding it via {{Formula One}}. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is blatant recentism, not to mention all the really important people are (or should be) mentioned at Formula One...if they belong anywhere. The only reason to keep this is as a bad example. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have updated the article per my comments above. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that it shouldn't be deleted, it just needs improvement, such as updates. Some of the content needs to be deleted (as DH85868993 has already stated, and some needs to be added, such as a more visible structure of the FIA/FOM. It should be more descriptive, but just include the more important people. If the article is brought up to standards, it would be a useful article (especially for people trying to learn more about Formula One. Editadam 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It isn't the lack of updates that is the problem, but its a collection of indiscriminate data with a very unlikely searchable name - list of people. Is it really encyclopedic? I refer you to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Falcadore (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list fails to have clear inclusion criteria -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The criteria of the list is too indiscriminate. I could support a "List of Formula One managers" (perhaps in chart format showing their years active, driver/constructor championship victories) as that could be concise and informative. But this article, no. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is a good idea. A List of Formula One managers (or Team Principals) could be good, but I think you would only want to include Managers of Constructors Champions, or something such as that. Other managers would be unneeded, as you could look on team articles for minor managers. Editadam 12:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs)

Comment - It badly needs proper inclusion criteria. What defines "significant"? It seems pretty random with no indicators of who to include and who to omit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with DH85868993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.254.200 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is so vague, literally anyone could be included. I've watched F1 before - am I a Formula 1 person? I would not be opposed to some sort of list existing, but it would require clearly defined limits as to who can be included and for what reasons. This list is far too vague to serve any purpose. I don't think it's worth keeping to improve, as improving it would require starting again at the very foundations of the list. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with ItsZippy that the criteria for inclusion is very vague and the list is weak, focussing mostly on recent people. But I disagree that the article is beyond improvement. It needs to define its criteria, have better subsections (lumping all "Significant figures of the past" in one section is not good; better to have sections reflecting their roles: e.g. engineers, team founders, owners, etc.), and include many more historic people. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In that instance the article should also establish why these 'people' are noteworthy. Presently it does not, it is little more than a directory, which is covered I think by what Wikipedia Is Not. --Falcadore (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (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.