Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Imperial Street Circuit

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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Imperial Street Circuit[edit]

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

The race was originally scheduled to be held in 2013. It did not happen, and was rescheduled for 2014. The 2014 calendar has since been released, and the race has not been included on it. There is currently nothing to indicate that it will be rescheduled again for 2015, and even if it is, there is nothing to indicate that it will not simply be cancelled and rescheduled again. The page should be deleted until such time as it actually takes place as we are unable to demonstrate that it absolutely will happen, and we do not have articles for proposed circuits and races that were never built or held. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it and the page nominated for deletion are mutually inclusive. One cannot exist without the other.

Oppose both. Regardless of whether or not the race ever takes place, this event, and its track, pass the WP:GNG by a country mile. Existence does not matter when it comes to notability, and notability is not temporary. Now, it might be possible to merge the circuit article into the race article, because, as noted, the circuit exists only for the proposed race, but that is cleanup and AfD is not for that; the fact that other stuff doesn't exist is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per The Bushranger. DH85868993 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per Bushranger. I also have a concern over whether this is WP:Pointy as the nominating editor has been engaged in an edit war on this subject, and I would seek assurances that there is no connection. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to protest the accusation that I am nominating this article for deletion out of spite. I am nominating it because it is an article for a circuit that, at this point in time, is not going to be used any time soon. Using that logic, I might create articles for the Cancun, Isla Margarita, Pulskovkoe Airport, Mar del Plata and Green Point circuits. All of them were proposed and/or approved, but none of them were used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficent reliable sources for each of those tracks to indicate they, at any point, ever, met the WP:GNG, then actually, yes you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous time I asked you about editting behavior on this article you responded spitefully by maligning my behavior on unrelated articles so I felt the question had to be asked. If you reflected and believe that this is not the caase then I consider the question asked and answered. --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will also note that I criticised you for not reading everything that an editor posts. I should not be surprised that you have done it again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Grand Prix of America Djflem (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per Bushranger, & because I'm not a fan of anything like this being deleted entirely. Merge it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. If sufficient reliable, significant, secondary sources can be found upon which to base an article then the article should stand. The fact that the circuit has never in fact emerged as a completed entity doesn't change the fact that it is noteworthy, clearly shown by the fact that so many local and international reputable sources have taken notice of it. The same comment applies to all articles, so if the OP can find the sources to demonstrate notability and verify facts then by all means they should write articles about whatever racing circuit they like. Pyrop e 14:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both - Per Bushranger, secondary, reliable sources have most certainly been provided. Just because an event will not happen does not make it non-notable. Zappa O Mati 00:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The current calendar is all but final. The provisional calendar could easily be Bernie trying to say to the organizers of the Grand Prix of America: "Don't think I cannot replace you with another Grand Prix. Get your problems sorted out or you will not be on the calendar. There are enough other candidates to fill your slot on it." Let's just give this matter some time until we have a more final calendar. If we have some official confirmation that there will never be any sort of racing event on the Port Imperial Circuit we can delete the articles. Tvx1 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Bernie has now himself denied the draft calendar and has confirmed that the Grand Prix of America still has a contract. [1] I think we should wait a couple of weeks until the WMSC decides on the calendar before deleting these articles. We'll have a clearer view on the situation by then. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the case the event has been cancelled, the articles meet WP:GNG and shouldn't be deleted anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 10 September 2013 (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.