Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season (2nd nomination)

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. the consensus seems to be that enough information is known to satisfy CRYSTAL. How far in the future we should go with these sorts of articles for recurring events needs a more general discussion,. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula One season[edit]

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

Recreation of a previously deleted page. Too far in the future for a meaningful article to be started. While some regulatory changes have been forecast, there is no calendar, and only three drivers of which much could change for in the next two years. Falcadore (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Expanded (26-03-12): As the content is essentially a coupy of the 2013 Formula One season article with minor ammendment and included a fair degree of unsourced rumour (the list of races for example which is very WP:CBALL) merging (per WP:Duplicate) the article into Formula One article future section is an alternative to deletion. --Falcadore (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's two years away. Back in 2006, Wikipedia had articles for the 2011 F1 season, and nobody deleted them did they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCH17 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Wikipedia did six years ago is not exactly relevant. But if it makes you feel better, just over a year ago seasons 2014 through 2020 were deleted because of premature creation. If past Wikipedia behavior is something you value. What is more important is the merits of this partciular case. --Falcadore (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As point or order, you've said it should be included, but that isn't the discussion. This is a deletion discussion, not a creation discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to cite which policy/policies this breaks, or to show why this isn't notable. You haven't done that. Please come back when you can. Lugnuts (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article appears to be based solely on what various constructor teams and races are contracted to do, not on speculation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated above, the page only details teams and events that are contractually obliged to appear, and therefore there is reasonable expectation that all will happen. While drivers for two seasons away may be in doubt, the established teams and locations are probably not. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably? I didn't think Wikipedia worked on probably. --Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith and not take a single word out of context .... I say "probably" because one of the locations could be destroyed in fire, bombed in a terrorist attack, destroyed in a plane crash etc etc etc ... as WP:CRYSTAL says - Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. But since the dates are written into a contract, then barring freak unexpected circumstances, there would be undesirable consequences (ie: breach of contract) if the events did not happen, so preparations will continue on the assumption that they would. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Good faith has nothing to do with it. I don't believe it is out of context. It goes to the core of my objections. Already the article is filled with assumptions, like for example, all the chassis-engine combinations. Williams changed at little notice and the smaller teams would be even more suspetible to changes. We have not accepted in the past that two years out is exempt from Crystal Ball tendencies. The Rome Grand Prix is another example of yes definately yes its coming and.... oh its gone and never was. Freak circumstances is not even close to the level of some of these assumptions failing. I note the European Grand Prix is included without any details of its future, this article is already attracting guesses and half-thoughts. Despite previous assurances above that this is about something the is almost certain to take place, it is reapidly filling up with details contrary to that statement and becoming a magnet for rumours - see the section on races where just being suggested means it can be added.
    - Surely this is an example of where a trimmed down version of this article could be merged into the Future seciotn on Formula One. Details about the length of contract of individual races and drivers can most easily be placed on the articles about those drivers and races? There is no danger of any of the information on this page being lost by its deletion. Right now the article is a collection of disparate facts and none of the organisers involved have issued any kind of collective announcement about calendars and drivers. I believe that WP:CBALL certainly applies here. Statements to the contrary (not by you) are of an opinion based nature. Statements of "come back later" don't reflect good faith either. It has been six years since Wikipedia has not deleted F1 seasons two years out under CBALL, why is it different now? --Falcadore (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recall that Rory Byrne and another bloke was employed by the FIA to propose radical changes to the technical regulations this year. They gave their recommendations with FOTA disagreeing and giving their own proposals. Charlie Whiting confirmed that there were to be radical changes in a citation for the article of the 2013 Formula One season. Maybe it is a good idea to specify these changes instead of deleting the article. Byrne's ideas (off the top of my head) was that there would be larger rear wheels, ground effects and an overall reduction in the quality of handling as a result of the changes, reason being that it would separate the men from the boys, so to speak. I hope that rung a few bells. Antimatter31 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes to the 2013 season are not relevant to this deletion debate. This is about the 2014 season, the year AFTER next year. --Falcadore (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, however it states in that article that 'At the 2012 Australian Grand Prix, Charlie Whiting — the FIA technical delegate — announced that although the changes to the sporting regulations planned for the 2014 season would effectively remove the "platypus" effect, the sport's governing body is planning to phase the stepped nose out for 2013.'... the source given for this originated from reference #62 http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98054 , which in turn has Charlie Whiting stating that 'In 2014, the rules will be entirely different and there will be much, much lower noses so that problem will disappear in 2014 I imagine.' These were the rules I was referring to. Antimatter31 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information in the article is legitimate, and the 2014 season will have a lot of crucial rule changes that should be added to the article (if they haven't been added already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those rule changes will indeed be added, but they have not yet been announced. In fact, they are unlikely to be announced until the middle of the 2013 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the following reasons:

Most of the content has simply been copied over from the 2013 season page. The text under "2014 season calendar" is taken verbatim from the 2013 page, and deals with the 2012 Concorde Agreement.
No detail has been provided with regards to the change in engines and regulations, and to the best of my knowledge, no futher information is currently available except for general statements.
The list of potential races for 2014 (Thailand, Argentina, Dubai, Mallorca, Greece, South Africa and Croatia) is highly speculative, and while substantiated by references, most of these fail WP:RELIABLE. Forums, for instance, are not to be referenced.
The only significant, substantiated difference between the 2013 and 2014 pages is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix to the table. That's it.
Finally, while Formula 1 season pages have been created in advance in the past, they generally only get made about 12 months in advance; for example, the 2013 season page was not made until October 2011. I believe there is a consensus about this somewhere at WP:F1. A 2014 season page will eventually be necessary, but "We're going to need it anyway" isn't really a valid reason for keeping the page. If previous years in the sport are anything to go by, then no real information about 2014 will emerge until later this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having F1 seasons articles one year in advance is sufficient. The 2014 season article is currently close to empty and it is not going to change until the end of 2012. As it is now, the 2013 article itself contains very few information, but it will be expanded over the course of 2012. The same will happen next year for 2014, so there is no need to hurry. We should focus on the nearest upcoming season; now it looks like we have this article just for having it. Maimai009 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject will without doubt be proven notable. The is currently sufficient reliably sourced information for a stan alone article. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because the content is not speculative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But there is no content. I'd be all for keeping the article if the content could be found. At the moment, there is none. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see content, and easily more than enough for a stub, which is enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That content is simply lifted from the 2013 page, rewritten slightly. There is no detail of the content right now. Why is it so critical that the page exists when it is simply going to do nothing for a year before actual content becomes available? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The season will take place and is notable, and the general outline of the season is already known. Hektor (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's important to keep this page, because 2014 will be a milestone in Formula one with the move to more enviromental motors and the return of the turbocharger. Unknown 21:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.87.70 (talk)

Comment: once again, the season might be a landmark, but there is currently a total lack of information available. We only know what will happen in the general sense - there are currently no details available because the 2014 season is two years away. We don't have any detail on the 2013 regulations, much less the 2014 ones. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's comment: Both sides of the debate above make good points in their arguments; while there is a somewhat stronger case, IMHO, for deletion, it's hardly conclusive. That, combined with the fact the nominator expanded the nomination rationale over a week after the nomination was created, led me to relist this in hopes of further discussion to establish consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm re-stating my support for deleting the article. My arguments are the same as above:

First of all, although the 2014 season will happen and will see a significant change in the technical regulations, there is currently no real detail about those changes, except to say that they will happen and explaining them in general terms. The 2014 regulations will largely be influenced by the 2013 designs, which will have been shaped by the 2013 regulations - and the 2013 regulations have not been detailed yet, so it's impossible to say with any certainty what will happen in 2014.
Secondly, the majority of the content on the 2014 season page has simply been copied and pasted from the 2013 season article. The only really new information is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix - and that is already covered in the Formula One article. It is also misleading, because I know several races need to re-negotiate their contracts ahead of the 2014 season, and yet these have been included in the list of races due to take place (though I couldn't name them off the top of my head - if I could, I would edit the article accordingly). And, at the risk of editorialising, the photo of the 2011 Indian Grand Prix podium feels like it has been added to justify keeping the article.
Finally, I'm not sure what the exact Wikipedia policy is (I know it exists), but "it will happen, so therefore, a page should be made for it" is not justification for creating the page, especially given the current lack of detail. It is an established practice within WP:F1 to only create pages once they are absolutely necessary - for instance, the 2013 season page was not made until October 2011, and even then, it was only made once details of a new race were announced (if the race in New Jersey hadn't been unveiled, it's likely the 2013 page would not have been created until January 2012 at the earliest).

So the way I see it, all of these issues need to be overcome before we can justify creating the 2014 page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy section that you are thinking of is Wikipedia:CRYSTAL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe we will begin to get more information on it in the next few months (when drivers begin renewing contracts), which will add to the content, making it more relevant. Mainly, though, this article should be kept because it includes important future events that have been confirmed, no speculation. If pages such as 2022 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics can exist, then surely a page only two years in the future, not ten and sixteen years in advance, should be allowed, especially considering it is, by far, not a stub. Editadam 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then recreate the page in a few months. It is not Wikipedia's role to anticipate notability. There is considerably more detail available of Olympics Games, for example the extensive bid processes which begin more than a decade ahead of the events. There is considerably more to write about. There is no such bid process for Grands Prix and indeed we are at least a year out from a calendar becoming available, so Olympic comparisons I believe fail. And the Rome Grand Prix is an example how 2014 calendars are not confirmed in 2012, but sepculatory in nature. The existance of future contracts can be made mention of in the pages of the individual races. --Falcadore (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to build on Falcadore's point, if you look at the 2022 World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics pages, you will see the difference between them and the 2014 Formula One season is that the World Cup and Olympics pages have actual content in them. Just look at the 2022 World Cup page - it has details of the bidding process, the venues, and describes the local issues that will need to be overcome for the events to take place. Now, look at the 2014 season page, and all you will find is an incomplete list of teams and drivers and a list of races. It's not enough to justify the page's existence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This still gives good referenced information and this is what wikipedia is all about. I don't think it should matter if it is a few years ahead as long as it has it's information which this page clearly does. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article? Moreover, have you actually read the article in comparison to the 2013 season page? 99% of the information on this page is identical to the 2013 season page. There simply isn't enough new information to seaprate the 2014 page from the 2013 page, and thereby justify keeping the 2014 page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information is the same? No, this talks about the new engines and new tracks, I don't see 2012 or 2013 mentioning the 2014 Russian track. Both 2013 and 2014 do mention the 2014 engine change, which should really be for 2014, so this is good information. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 2014 engines are documented on other season pages for a reason: they were originally intended to be introduced for 2013, but were pushed back a year at the request of engine manufacturers. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for them to be mentioned on other pages. Which means that the only unique piece of information on this page is the addition of the Russian Grand Prix - which is already covered (and has been for some time) at Formula One#Future. It's not enough to justify the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no reason that this article needs to be deleted. 2014 is going to see a lot of rule changes that need to be posted on this page. User:GeoJoe2000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 3 April 2012 (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.