Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Brickyard 400
Source: 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 Speedy Keep. Nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zappa24Mati 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Brickyard 400
- 2014 Brickyard 400 (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 article has been created eight weeks before the event. We usually create race articles a week or two before, not eight. Daytona 500 15:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP -- When I got a message saying this was here, I thought maybe I had done something wrong. Now I see that it's just because I laid the foundation for the article a few weeks in advance? I've seen other auto racing articles created a few months in advance, and no one complained about those. I presented it the way that it normally is presented. The fact that it's a few weeks in advance shouldn't matter, because, that would also suggest that all those other auto racing articles that were made months in advance should have been deleted as well, but they weren't; they were all made with the minimum basic script laid out, ready for them when the time came. And besides, it's not just auto racing scripts that are laid out a few months in advance, I've seen tennis Majors had their article created a whole year in advance, and it stayed there without being deleted. The fact that it's a few weeks in advance is only delaying the inevitable. I could make it again in a few weeks with the exact same information that is in it now, but that would be silly seeing as how I've now already made one. Making another one, with the exact same information, in a few weeks' time from now, would just be extra time and effort put in when it's not necessary, being that the basic starting script for the article would be unchanged from the way it is now. This is why so many tennis Major articles are started nearly a year in advance, it's because the basic starting script in them remains unchanged. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that this year's Indianapolis 500 page was made on May 28th, 2013. And it stayed! Johnsmith2116 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Race articles are never created this early. As the nom said, usually about two weeks before. United States Man (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, yes they ARE done often several weeks, or in some cases, MONTHS, in advance across the whole auto racing spectrum, we're not just talking nascar. And second, the above user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man) is using this as a sadistic opportunity to get back at me because of on ongoing grudge against me, so, with that being the case, their opinion here is void because it's just meant out of malice. In fact, truth be known, probably the only reason they knew about this is because they are keeping an eye on my profile to see that I'm doing. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems there is consensus that the topic is notable. There is disagreement about when the article is best put into mainspace. Seems like there oughta be a standard...and the obvious standard is one year! in advance, not 1 week or 2 weeks or 8 weeks...if anyone wants to create an article about the 2015 Wimbledon tennis tournament, frankly i think 1 year is cool. Any news coverage is likely to be about the next one, not the one after next, so up to the 1 year before standard there is accumulating coverage. This wonderful reasoning by me (You're welcome!) oughta be enshrined in some standard/guideline/policy somewhere. :) Seriously, though, there is no reason to distinguish between 1 vs. 2 vs. 8 weeks, and the "next" one is determined 1 year in advance. --doncram 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That solution won't work for most of the races, because the NASCAR schedule isn't released until September usually. I really so no reason for an article to sit empty for a whole year. All that would be there is "so-and-so race is upcoming" and brief background info about the track. Hardly any races get coverage until one to two weeks before. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's comical, although predictable, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man), that you would come on here pretending that you care about this topic when you know very well that you're just using it as a means to show your vindictiveness for retaliation over a totally different issue altogether. Your mission on the other thing failed, so you try to use this. Some people will stoop to anything. Seeing as how this is totally out of your own bias to further your own personal agenda, you don't get a vote on this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- John, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a pretty silly claim to make. According to United States Man's own userpage ( <-- that link ) he is interested in three topics - tornadoes, roads and NASCAR and has created articles about each of those things. He's a member of WikiProject NASCAR (he's listed on the front page) and may well have received notification of this discussion as soon as it was posted (it is first on the list of the project's article notifications). Now he and I disagree on what should happen to this article in this instance but even those who disagree have managed to keep this discussion fairly civil. You are the exception and I'd imagine you're heading toward a block for personal attacks if you continue. Take a step back and calm down. You certainly don't get to unilaterally declare someone's opinion invalidated because you have a conspiracy theory. St★lwart111 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input, but if you knew more about the last 2 months' worth of that user's antics, you'd fully understand the full scope of that user's vindictive nature. This isn't the first or 2nd time, it's the 3rd time at the very least. It's been months of this non-sense. And even if that user was invited here, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are using this as the opportunity to get back at me, and it isn't the first time.
- So is my equally-weighted opinion an attempt to get back at him for some unknown slight? Or is yours an attempt to get back at the nominator? Not likely. He's allowed an opinion here, just like everyone else (regardless of his motivations). He's also not the only member of WikiProject NASCAR with that opinion - did he turn them all against you? Not likely. Just focus on content rather than theorising about the possible motivations of others. Doing so is a waste of time. Doing so publicly will just get you blocked. St★lwart111 04:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stalwart111, Thanks again for your comments. But, me pointing out that that user has been vindictively targeting me is not a personal attack, it's a matter of fact. Plus, a few hours ago, they went on the Dispute board and deleted a certain portion of someone else's edit, which was then put back by another user. That's the nature of the way that user does things, and it's ridiculous. I realize you've just come in. This thing with that user has gone one for quite some time, so, for you to see a few words here and judge going only by that, that's not right. .. As far as the race is concerned, there are race articles that are made much more than a few weeks in advance as well as for tennis too. In fact, the Indianapolis 500 for this year was made a whole year in advance.
- It is most certainly considered a personal attack if it is not backed up with evidence. In this case, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite of what you have claimed. I'm just providing fair and friendly warning - I'm not an admin, I can't block you anyway. As for other races, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Others are making strong policy-based arguments in favour of keeping the article and there's nothing more you need to do. Probably best to find something else to edit for a couple of days while this runs its course. St★lwart111 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence is there, in the contribution history. That user had even been gently scolded by the Dispute board last month. But thanks again for your input. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is most certainly considered a personal attack if it is not backed up with evidence. In this case, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite of what you have claimed. I'm just providing fair and friendly warning - I'm not an admin, I can't block you anyway. As for other races, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Others are making strong policy-based arguments in favour of keeping the article and there's nothing more you need to do. Probably best to find something else to edit for a couple of days while this runs its course. St★lwart111 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stalwart111, Thanks again for your comments. But, me pointing out that that user has been vindictively targeting me is not a personal attack, it's a matter of fact. Plus, a few hours ago, they went on the Dispute board and deleted a certain portion of someone else's edit, which was then put back by another user. That's the nature of the way that user does things, and it's ridiculous. I realize you've just come in. This thing with that user has gone one for quite some time, so, for you to see a few words here and judge going only by that, that's not right. .. As far as the race is concerned, there are race articles that are made much more than a few weeks in advance as well as for tennis too. In fact, the Indianapolis 500 for this year was made a whole year in advance.
- So is my equally-weighted opinion an attempt to get back at him for some unknown slight? Or is yours an attempt to get back at the nominator? Not likely. He's allowed an opinion here, just like everyone else (regardless of his motivations). He's also not the only member of WikiProject NASCAR with that opinion - did he turn them all against you? Not likely. Just focus on content rather than theorising about the possible motivations of others. Doing so is a waste of time. Doing so publicly will just get you blocked. St★lwart111 04:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input, but if you knew more about the last 2 months' worth of that user's antics, you'd fully understand the full scope of that user's vindictive nature. This isn't the first or 2nd time, it's the 3rd time at the very least. It's been months of this non-sense. And even if that user was invited here, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are using this as the opportunity to get back at me, and it isn't the first time.
- John, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a pretty silly claim to make. According to United States Man's own userpage ( <-- that link ) he is interested in three topics - tornadoes, roads and NASCAR and has created articles about each of those things. He's a member of WikiProject NASCAR (he's listed on the front page) and may well have received notification of this discussion as soon as it was posted (it is first on the list of the project's article notifications). Now he and I disagree on what should happen to this article in this instance but even those who disagree have managed to keep this discussion fairly civil. You are the exception and I'd imagine you're heading toward a block for personal attacks if you continue. Take a step back and calm down. You certainly don't get to unilaterally declare someone's opinion invalidated because you have a conspiracy theory. St★lwart111 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's comical, although predictable, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man), that you would come on here pretending that you care about this topic when you know very well that you're just using it as a means to show your vindictiveness for retaliation over a totally different issue altogether. Your mission on the other thing failed, so you try to use this. Some people will stoop to anything. Seeing as how this is totally out of your own bias to further your own personal agenda, you don't get a vote on this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That solution won't work for most of the races, because the NASCAR schedule isn't released until September usually. I really so no reason for an article to sit empty for a whole year. All that would be there is "so-and-so race is upcoming" and brief background info about the track. Hardly any races get coverage until one to two weeks before. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect — Per Wikipedia:Notability...The three sources currently referenced are from last year. There's never any sources available for these races until a week or two before. And Josh, the reason that some race articles are created months in advance is because races like the Daytona 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Indianapolis 500 are three of the biggest races in all of motor sports so there's always info. The Coca-Cola 600, one of NASCAR's marquee events, didn't have anything beyond when the race was scheduled.--Daytona 500 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A little early, perhaps, but this is the 21st running of a major NASCAR race and there is no doubt that it will either be held or sensationally cancelled, thus encyclopedic either way. The information presented so far would be helpful to anyone searching the title. WP is better off with the material in mainspace than it would be from userfication and return. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOTBURO: this is a case where the page will be recreated in just over a month. Yes, it was created WP:TOOSOON and somebody deserves a trout for that, but at this point deleting it would be slightly silly. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per doncram, Carrite and Bushranger. I understand that certain WikiProjects have certain ways of doing things and non-participants usually respect those ways provided they are compliant with policy. But that doesn't mean those "ways" become policy and it doesn't mean that a new user's enthusiasm should be used as a reason for deletion. I agree a year might be a bit early but I watch NASCAR occasionally and they regularly provide coverage (during broadcasts) of races weeks in advance where those races might impact on standings. 1-2 weeks might be practical but 8 weeks is not so far outside the confines of reasonableness that deletion is justified. Perhaps spend some time welcoming the newcomer (who is obviously keen on this topic area) and induct him into your "ways" so that future instances are avoided. St★lwart111 00:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes it's a bit too early, but the event's notable anyway and will end up getting an article sooner or later. Might as well just let it stay. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I learned from the above discussion that articles on races in America are usually created two days before the event. However, in some racing series, particularly Formula One, an article for the event is created as early as a whole year before it happens. Why the difference? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not terribly concerned with the early creation in this situation. This may be an issue with some event or the release of an album that we have no idea if it will be notable, but a few weeks too early? Somehow I can't get too worked up about this. Edit: this is a keep vote.
- Having said that, do they really have a separate article about each separate year? It just seems like overkill. Bali88 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:ROUTINE event, covered in a routine way, no different to any MLB, NFL or Soccer match happening on the same day, it will be in the sports news but WP:NOTNEWS applies here. LGA talkedits 03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same reaction...it seems like overkill to document every single year, but apparently that's what they do. It seems though, that the discussion is whether it should be deleted because apparently he put up the page 6 weeks early instead of 2 weeks early. They're discussing whether the page should be deleted so it can be recreated again in 4 weeks. It seems that everyone is cool with a yearly brickyard 400 article. It may be useful to put in a second vote that if the page is kept, if it should be taken down now because it was a few weeks early in its creation. That seems to be the major bone of contention. Bali88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They may do that, but WP policy is clear that we no not cover news events and local projects can't override site wide policy. LGA talkedits 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Races are not the same as stick-and-ball sporting events. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They may do that, but WP policy is clear that we no not cover news events and local projects can't override site wide policy. LGA talkedits 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same reaction...it seems like overkill to document every single year, but apparently that's what they do. It seems though, that the discussion is whether it should be deleted because apparently he put up the page 6 weeks early instead of 2 weeks early. They're discussing whether the page should be deleted so it can be recreated again in 4 weeks. It seems that everyone is cool with a yearly brickyard 400 article. It may be useful to put in a second vote that if the page is kept, if it should be taken down now because it was a few weeks early in its creation. That seems to be the major bone of contention. Bali88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep I know I'm the one who started this deletion discussion but I'm changing my vote to keep since the race is a mere seven weeks away now. Also, the consensus seems pretty solid for keep.--Daytona 500 02:21, 6 June 2014 (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.