Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards/Proposed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thoughts

I added any current driver to driver's criteria. I was thinking that even drivers who are scheduled to run too, but I wanted everyone's opinion. I was also thinking any current team (or proposed) too. I was thinking any track that ever held a race (in the Big 3 premiere series) should be included. Maybe some of the major tracks in other major series like Stafford is for the Modifieds, etc. I want some more time to think about it before I say anything more. Royalbroil 01:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A few more thoughts: What about developmental drivers? How successful have they been to securing rides in the Big 3? What about Matt Martin, Mark's son? I added him to the project because he's a developmental driver and a famous son. What about people in Halls of Fame (especially Georgia Hall of Fame)? Royalbroil 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame definitely merits a spot. You could probably get away with Matt Martin (since we have Larry Foyt) but I'm not sure where to go with the rest of the development drivers. If they have a Big 3 ride, and/or have won an ARCA/ASA/USAC race, I'd say we can keep those guys/gals. It also depends how our article with the touring series come along. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

More categories that come to mind: Past & Present Track Owners (I added Humpy Wheeler today), champions of regional NASCAR series (East, Southwest, etc.), champions in Whelen Modified series (or the national champion before 1985), a driver with at least one NASCAR big 3 series start that is a member of a stock-car related HOF, developmental drivers (as D-Day proposed above), Top NASCAR officials (although they would easily pass WP:BIO because of being an executive in a large company), and someone named to a Top XX driver list for their NASCAR contributions (specifically something like the Top 10 NASCAR modified drivers according to NASCAR.com). Royalbroil 02:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, notable NASCAR personalities that would be household names to NASCAR fans, such as: pace car drivers (only Elmo Langley comes to mind, and he makes it as a driver/owner), notable chief starters/flagmen (only Harold Kinder comes to mind), oddballs like Bill Broderick ("the hat guy" who was in victory lane for Union 76 for decades), etc. Royalbroil 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, great job. Second, I vote that this really belongs as a subpage of the WIkiProject, not D-Days. (no offense at all intended, I just think that #1, larger stage = larger audeince, and #2, it belongs to us all.)

OK, down to real suggestions about the notibility policy.

Regarding drivers: Points #1-6 I would agree with. #7 (relative + notable in their own right) might be a touch to broad, but eh... #8 needs to be more specific. (Example: Ayrton Senna died in a racing crash, but I would not call him part of this WP) #9, ok, but again, more specific.

Regarding racetracks: I propose that any major racing series going to any physical location even once is notable. Case in point (again, borrowing from WP:F1) Zeltweg_Airfield was used but once, TI Circuit and Boavista used but twice, and all are considered notable.

Regarding races themselves: I would say that if the race is no longer held, that 5 is a good number. I would, however, add that if the race is on the current schedule, that it would merit its own page. For example: the Sony HD 500 would need to be merged under the current proposal, but I see no need for the Peach State 200, (November 3, 1968 at Jeffco Speedway, Jefferson, GA last race of the 1968 season, link) to have its own page. In an un-unintentional coincidence, this race would not have a place at all under the current system, as the track only held two races total. -slowpokeiv 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Race name changes

I'd like to propose a standard way of dealing with races that change names frequently.

1. Have the article under current (or most recent) race name.
2. When the race changes names, move the article to the new name, leaving a redirect from the old name.
3. All of the previous names should redirect to the current (or most recent) name.

I think most of us are doing this already, but it should probably be written down somewhere. Recury 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with every letter. Nicely put. Royalbroil 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree Makes perfect sense. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Already stated and used, but Agree. -slowpokeiv 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as it makes the most sense of possible solutions. DomRem | Yeah? 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Race name standard

Damn, I thought of something else. Should we be including the "presented by blah" part of the article names? I've seen some that have it (e.g. Telcel-Motorola 200 presented by Banamex) and some that don't (Banquet 400 presented by ConAgra Foods). I guess I would support not including it just for simplicity's sake. Recury 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not include - simplicity, plus that's how racing-reference.com does it (my favorite source). Royalbroil 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include - simplicity alone. I would spell out the full title in the opening statement (e.g., The Telcel-Motorola 200 presented by Banamex is a NASCAR race...) for the sake of completeness, but yeah, shouldn't be required to have the whole title as name of article. -slowpokeiv 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include. ITT Industries, Systems Division and Goulds Pumps Salute to the Troops 250 presented by Dodge, anyone? How about Sam's Town 'He Dared To Rock' 250 benefiting St. Jude Children's Research Hospital? Definitely should be shortened as much as possible. DomRem | Yeah? 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Modifiication

I just wanted to take a little bit of time and talk about the modification WillC and DaNASCAT brought up. True, I'd love to have a complete database of every NASCAR driver ever, especially if it would help our articles of older drivers. Unfortunately, there's one thing that may just stand in this way: Deletionists who aren't part of WikiProject NASCAR. From what I've noticed is that many users who aren't in this WikiProject don't know about NASCAR, aren't interested, etc. And there's nothing wrong with that. (I have no interest in science-related articles for example) Unfortunately, there is a group out there that'll delete anything at anytime, and show no mercy.

Now am I trying to scare anybody? No. But Wikipedia does have strict notability guidelines, and it may be tough changing people's minds on our articles. The Spencer Clark article just got kept by a hair, which is why I brought up this proposed standards section; so we can have something to refer to on the day, God forbid, one of our articles is brought up for deletion.

That said, I won't raise a fuss if that modification is accepted. I have already stated my qualms about what MAY happen if we kept it. I'm perfectly neutral about it. I'd just hate for us, one of the greatest group of users I've ever worked with, to become the victims in another userbox war.

On a final note, I believe if a driver was able to move up to a higher NASCAR level, they must have done something notable before that in order to get there. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 11:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put. I sometimes go to the Articles for Deletion (Afd) (as an inclusionist) just to keep the deletionists in line. Some people vote to delete EVERYTHING with the explanation nn (non-notable). I have already done a small amount of research to find out that the article in question IS notable, and changed the outcome. Most articles there, however, do belong to be deleted. We have a fairly large group of people that would likely bring a "no consensus" vote if most of us voted, but some might consider that vote stacking. I have kept off political type userboxes because of the userbox debate (although I normally to sit on the fence anyhow). I remember someone mentioned that Bobby Hamilton was once up for Afd, so almost any driver can get nominated for deletion at any time. We need to have an agreement about what to keep so can all vote together as a group interested in an article. Maybe it would be best for us all to think about what our guidelines of inclusion would be in a similar sport, such as the NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL/etc. Do you think that just making a big-league squad is enough to be notable? Royalbroil 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bobby Hamilton was Afd'd because it got mistaken for a vanity article. I do remember reading somewhere that one game (atbat whatever) was good enough for the other sports. And yes, another thing I fear is the vote-stacking accusations. Some Wikipedians hate "clique-ish" groups, and would mistake a dedicated group like us for being just that. I don't know. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But after seeing some of the crap the large-and-in-charge editors have pulled, it just comes naturally. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 13:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

questions

The premiere series aren't named. How do we define these? I'm assuming Nextel Cup, Busch, and Craftsman truck series are included. Is this correct? Are there any others?

Under crew chiefs, the wins requirement is vague. Do they have to win as a driver or help a driver to win as a crew chief?

The premiere series are defined as Cup, Busch, and Craftsman. And the crew chiefs must help the driver win. (I know of few who were drivers themselves.) --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Info boxes

First of all I think these infoboxes for the drivers need some kind of modifications. Under the award category which awards should come first? Should it be the oldest award or should it be the newest award? Or should it come by order of importantce? I like the oldest award showing first, but that is just me. What do you people think?

And also what do you think of the user boxes as a whole? Do you like the design of them, or should they be a change. That is something I am thinking about.

Thanks, Bdman 01:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have always sorted them in order in importance. I think you should hit the reader with the best stuff first in case they stop reading. I like the design of the infobox and have no problem with it, so I can't think that anything to be changed. Do you have any specific problems? Royalbroil 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the info boxes are not that bad. However I am still looking into them more.

I think it would be great if we came up with an order of importance under the award section and put them in the Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Proposed Standards.(kind of like rankings) What do you all think? Thanks, Bdman 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Notibility (races starts vs current driver)

In response to VMAAXT and Casey14, I would actually disagree with making it either easier for retired drivers, or harder for current drivers to get a page. Reason: If a current driver retires, but did nothing notable in their carrer, I would deem them non-notable, and as such, their page should at that time be removed. On the other hand, I also disagree with the 15 start rule, same reason. Yeah, ok, you made it around the track, and at a high level, but is that notable enough?

Case in point: February 22, 2004. Joe Ruttman started the Subway 400 at Rockingham with no pit crew. [1] He litterally made it around the track once, and was parked. (And got $54K for finishing 43rd, but that's beside the point.) If that was his only start, would it have been notable enough to warrant a page "Joe Ruttman was a NASCAR Nextel Cup racer. He raced one lap at NC speedway in 2004 in a borrowed car."

Extreme scenario, but better example: John Krebs. [2] Only raced 3 races other than at Sonoma and Riverside. [3] 19 starts over 13 years, never broke the top ten, (best finish 19th, broke top 25 only 4 times) never won a pole, in short, I would say that he didn't really do anything, and as such, shouldn't have an article in the WP. -slowpokeiv 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you about Krebs notability. He is one of the drivers that I remember from the 1980s. The shear number of starts made him stick in my mind. I will always instantly remember John Krebs as a NASCAR driver. He reminds me of Jocko Maggiacomo.

15 is the absolute maximum number of starts threshhold before I change my vote to disagree. That's a half season most years. I originally proposed a number around 5. There have only been a few lame efforts like Ruttman's park and ride. The Wikipedia's notability standards for sportspeople states "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league". I have seen AFD voted as keep for an athlete with a single event. --Royalbroil 01:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the WP standard that you mentioned. As such, I will most certainly not argue against it, and propose that one start in any premiere NASCAR series should be a notability standard. The other non-conflicting standards should not be negated, but as the single start is a larger umbrella, other more restrictive qualifiers can be removed.

To be honest, I'm glad the WP has such a guideline, that is more lax than my original suggestions. The main reason I made them so strict, was two fold: One, I wanted to make sure that every article that the NASCAR WP maintained could stand up to deletionists (speedy keep), and two, I didn't want it to merely become a statistics holding tank (unlike racing-reference.com, which is intended to be such, and does a great job of it. I did not think we needed to be a duplicate of that, but at the same time, we can do bios, where they are stats only.)-slowpokeiv 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The notability guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It is the fifth bullet. I agree that the bios is what differentiates Wikipedia from racing-reference. --Royalbroil 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)