Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valenciagate scandal

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciagate scandal

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

Unencyclopedic content. Multiple issues. Content largely based on NPOV opinions. Very minor incident, only a drive through penalty. Much of the content duplicated in 2010 European Grand Prix. Not actually a scandal. Falcadore (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a lot wrong with this: the original article was for an in-race incident that was covered in detail on the 2010 European Grand Prix page. It was written with an incredible pro-Ferrari and anti-Lewis Hamilton bias, using terms like "innocent" and "guilty" to refer to each, cited numerous examples of other similar cases that involves Hamilton and paid a lot of attention to the reaction from Ferrari and virtually no-one else. It included a dozen Spanish-language references from sources that are considered unreliable at best and incredibly biased at worst. Nor does it qualify under the defintion of a "scandal". Consensus on the article talk page, 2010 European Grand Prix talk page and WP:F1 seems to be in favour of delete with a motion to merge anything that can be salvaged, though opinion seems to be that there is nothing worth merging and the title of the article is informal and inappropriate. The article has since been re-written in line with a neutral POV, but no longer contains references because I didn't have any at hand nd I feel the article is not worth keeping. There are half a dozen other examples of controversial penalties in the sport that I could care to name, yet none of them have a page here. In short, it was little more than a thinly-veiled attack on Hamilton hiding in the guise of an encyclopedia article written by a fan who felt that the decision was unjust. Therefore, delete! Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without hesitation This page is atrocious and relates to an incredibly narrow part of one race in formula one. This article appears to have been created as a vent for the frustration of Pro-Ferrari editors which cannot be allowed. Most of the Pro Ferrari bias has though now been removed. This article can have as many sources as it likes but in this case it is not made notable by them. If this article is allowed to remain then there will be an unworkable proliferation of every single incident that happens in a race and the gate suffix will be used to give at sense of sensationalism above its actual weight. This page and similar pages must not be allowed to be created separately and where possible must only be on Wikipedia as part of the article on the Formula one race, the incident occurred in.-- Lucy-marie (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any useful information, and I feel there may be none, can be merged to 2010 European Grand Prix and this article should then be deleted. It was never necessary, as the above editors have said, even if it were written without the hopeless bias that originally shrouded it. A very inauspicious article, with very shady intent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the quality of the article, although I share the views expressed above, this article serves as a POV fork to the race article at 2010 European Grand Prix, where the incident is already discussed. That article is not yet even 32 kb in size and there is no good reason to split off a daughter article. Google suggests that 'Valenciagate' is not widely used outside this article, and I suggest we do not use the term as a redirect either. 4u1e (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article regards an incident that can easily be covered by the 2010 European Grand Prix article, the race in which the incident happened. Currently the incident only exists as an accusation by one team and its drivers that they were treated unfairly. Nobody else has said much about it. Was horrifically biased when created, although this has since been altered. - mspete93 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the name is hardly a given one for this incident and whatever of the text should be saved, should be in the article on the race. John Anderson (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must say that I disagree with the opinion of the nominator that it was "a very minor incident". Quite the opposite, the incident is very notable and IMO deserve an article of its own. The FIA already had to change the safety car regulations because of it and according to this webpage [1] it seems that now Jean Todt has summoned Hamilton, Alonso and Whiting for a meeting before the British GP to review the Valence events and according to the webpage he wants to know why it took so long for Hamilton to be penalized. And lets be honest, any incident involving Alonso and Hamilton gets huge coverage by the press. Dr. Loosmark 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Loosmark, can you explain why you don't think any and all of this can be covered in the existing race article? Or if not there in the season summary. Why do we need a separate article, without its proper background and context and with the potential that brings for inconsistency? Note that between them the two articles currently have around 19kb of text (not accounting for the overlap in coverage between the two). WP:SIZE recommends that under 40kb of text does not justify splitting on size grounds and in practice many articles are much larger. 4u1e (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well mainly because this has become too big to be covered by a few lines in the race article, it's not a mere race accident. And they are still trying to fix the safety car rules, it's mess: [2] I don't get why don't they just close the pits when the safety car comes out until the pack is bunched behind the SC. A couple of years ago that rule didn't work because people were running out of fuel, but now it would be a perfect solution without all those delta times and what not. Dr. Loosmark 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but that's a very poor argument. How can you logically claim that it's too big to be covered in the race article, when there is plenty of room to expand the race article? And if safety car rules are becoming a big thing this year (probably true) then the 2010 Formula One season article should cover it in the proper context of the whole year. 4u1e (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it should only be covered by some few lines in the race article? I think it is a much more important incident than just to write a few lines about it, it could defenitely have its own section. OTOH, it is not noteworthy enough to have an article of its own and as it is so closely linked to the race in question it should be covered in the race article. If there should be an article the article should definitely not be called anything like 'Valenciagate' since that can probably not be deemed a neutral name for the incident. John Anderson (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: While potentially irrelevant because of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I think the comparison here is valid. What other Formula One articles have arisen not covering season and race coverage because of controversies? FISA/FOCA war, Nelson Piquet crash incident, what else? The action involved here were a drive-thru penalty and a tweaking of the safety car regulations, is that even remotely compareable to the impact of these other incidents? Can we please have some perspective and not succumb to WP:RECENTISM. --Falcadore (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ayrton Senna would be another. On the other hand, there are not separate articles for the two championship-deciding collisions at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix and the 1997 European Grand Prix. And you're right, thus far this is a seriously minor incident. Should we have an article on Schumacher's pass of Alonso on the last lap at Monaco this year? That had a more concrete effect on the rules for this season. Or how about Webber and Vettel's collision at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix? Didn't that result in a change to the safety car rules too? Examples of incidents that result in tweaks to the rules are pretty common. 4u1e (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. There are a dozen examples that you could cite of controversial incidents that do not have pages of their own - Adelaide 1994, Jerez 1997, Japan 2007, Belgium 2008, Monaco 2010, Istanbul 2010 (given the Red-Bull-are-favouring-Vettel conspiracy theory). This is not a notable event: it happened, and action has been taken to correct it; the rules relating to the safety car have been changed. Fernando Alonso has admitted that his emotions got the better of him and apologised. As far as most on the grid are concerned, the issue has been put to bed. The only person who stands out as objecting to it is Luca di Montezemolo, and even he's gone quiet. The only reason the page exists in the first place is because Ferrari over-reacted to the incident. There is nothing this page does that cannot be achieved by the race report page. Sure, we can add a few extra lines into that page, but I can't justify the existence of this one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here exists that can't be sufficiently dealth with by (at most) a paragraph in the race article as others have already pointed out. As is, it just looks like a POV fork. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~ The race should be invalidated for serious errors by the race direction and the inconsistency of the rules of Formula 1. The problem was not only the illegally passing of the safety car or that it took the stewards twenty minutes to settle on a verdict, but that the safety car was incredibly deployed onto the circuit in front of Hamilton and behind Vettel. From what I remember this is the first time something like that happens in Formula 1, so: keep it and also add (at least) a couple of sections in the race article! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the race results should be invalidated, then the page is only worth keeping if the actually are. "Should have happened" is not a case for creating a Wikipedia page. Either it happened, or it didn't. How do you propose rewriting the article to a) retain a neutral point of view, whilst b) pointing out that the race results "should have" been considered null and void? It simply cannot be done because b) is simply an opinion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for opinions dressed as fact. Unless more is made of the incident - and so far, nothing has been (and it's unlikely to, given that the world has moved on) - then there is no reason to keep the article around. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Lotus' technical director Mike Gascoyne stated exactly what I said, and it is a very serious problem that never happened before. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gascoyne certainly didn't say the race result should be invalidated. He did say that the affair was the unforeseen result of changes to the safety car rules, but that Charlie Whiting did all that he had to and could have done in the situation (e.g. here). If there's an argument that the race result should be invalidated, that should be cited properly. Our own personal opinion on how the race should be run is not a justification for keeping. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think you are confused as to what wikipedia's role is. It is not to record what should be, not to analyse and draw judgement, but to record what is and what did. Whatever Mike Gascoyne might have said is certainly not justification for a separate article, as the chief of Lotus Racing he was not directly involved in the incident and his opinion is no more valid than any of the hundreds of other opinions within the F1 paddock. If you want to express your own personal opinion there are many blog and forum based options to allow you to do that. --Falcadore (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete ~ This is not an important enough event to get its own article. The race report provides ample opportunity to address this issue. Every controversy does not warrant a page on its own. There were many racing events before this and there will be many after this. Senna-Prost crash at Suzuka, Hamilton's overtake at Spa, and 2007 Brazilian GP fuel Temp irregularity are just a few from a huge list of controversies that don't have an article. I think this is a POV push by Ferrari fans. Those who are suggesting that this article should be kept to fan the flame of Hamilton-Alonso rivalry, should know that Wikipedia is not a collection news. Sumanch (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge - With 2010 European Grand Prix. This is a small squabble within the sport that does not have enough relevance to a common user to have its own dedicated page. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2010 European Grand Prix. This storm in a teacup isn't notable enough for its own article. Besides, it is an intrinsic part of the events of the 2010 European Grand Prix and so should be summarised there. Pyrop e 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as recentism and as per most other contributors. This is not a major scandal in F1 history. It got coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event thanks to Ferrari's reaction, and has caused a relatively minor change in the rules of a sport whose rules change frequently anyway. It's not like football or rugby where the rules are fairly constant: Formula One makes significant changes to its rules every year, so a minor change like this is nothing particularly special. There's no lasting notability, no information that cannot better and more neutrally be covered by 2010 European Grand Prix and 2010 Formula One Season. This article should thus be deleted. Pfainuk talk 21:00, 12 July 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.