Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of Formula One

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. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Formula One

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

Prodded by User:147.70.242.54 with the following justification: One part crystal balling, one part coatrack, and mostly something with a "cleanup" tag since 2006. Speculations, proposals, and "could be" should be discarded; parts with citations can be tucked into more appropriate articles. The future itself cannot be documented to satisfy WP:N and WP:RS, just those parts that have been contracted and/or officially announced. Deprodded by User: 70.29.210.242 with the edit comment rm PROD - longstanding article - lots of editors - rated "mid" by WPF1 - send it to AfD if you want to delete it. I tend to agree with the former as there is quite a bit of crystal balling, and the 2010 data can be easily incorporated into 2010 Formula One season. B.Wind (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article does not add much, referenced infomation merged with approiate pages. Much is speculation. Cystal balling --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has plenty of sourced content that belongs somewhere in our articles about Formula One, but I don't think that, for any topic, having a "Future of xxx" article is a good way to organise content. Information should be presented in a timeless way, so that it remains accurate whenever it is read. By definition the content here will not be part of the future of Formula One in a few years time - it will either be part of the present (if these measures are adopted) or of the past (if they are are rejected). I would urge the relevant Wikiproject to find a better way of organising this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, sourced infomation should be moved to a more relevant article. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree with Phil Bridger. The majority of content is outdated and unreferenced. All of the referenced material is already mentioned across other pages throughout WP:F1. Most of the future content is at 2011 Formula One season. Schumi555 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as the editor who posted the original {{prod}} tag. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By way of (in a way) Ten Pound Hammer's Law. Ham tech person 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CBALL. What is salvageable can easily be placed in other articles, indeed much alread has. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2010 (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.