Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One driver numbers

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One driver numbers[edit]

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

This list has little use and not much appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans. The numbers that are used during the current season are always listed in the article for current season. All this lists adds to that is the four or five former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired. That does not seem to be enough for a standalone article for this concept that has only been in use for two of the nearly 70 years Formula One has existed. T v x1 15:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that it being a new concept on the suggestion/implication that it won't last long enough to become relevant or isn't article-worthy until it's been around for a decade or so is irrelevant. There are outside sources that compile driver numbers and detail why they elected to choose them. For example, Pastafarians have only been around for a decade in the thousands of years of diversified religion, and is even acknowledged as a parody religion, yet that article exists because the sources make it notable. And the notion that it'd be of little to no use for anyone not interested in Formula One is a matter of personal opinion. Regardless, there are literally tens of thousands upon tens of thousands, perhaps even up to a million, of articles on Wikipedia that appeal to only a very specific audience. We do not decide what is and isn't notable. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP. T v x1 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE This is making a list for the sake of making a list. What number a Formula One racing driver places on his car matters only in sense of aesthetics. There is no inherent value in a race number, a driver is not more or less likely to improve their chances by having a lower number. Even the #1 traditionally put aside for the reigning champion has value only pertaining to the previous years performance, not the current year. --Falcadore (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are other various aesthetic-only lists within the F1 community with far less sources than this. Again, the wiki editors do not decide what is notable and what is not. Unrelated, your comment is not signed. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel that strongly that there are other articles that shouldn't be here either, by all means nominate them for deletion. Their current existence is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, however. And agains as well, while editors don't decide notability, they do determine whether notability is sufficient by looking at the sources. T v x1 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are other various aesthetic-only lists within the F1 community with far less sources than this. You know why this is not a viable defence? Because it could mean these other articles should also be deleted. Each article stands or falls purely on its own merits not upon the merits of other articles. --Falcadore (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nominator is right to say premise that "All this lists adds to that is the four or five former drivers that still hold the rights to a number and the one number that has been permanently retired." – but for me, that plus the description of the change in numbering practices in 2014, is adequate basis for a low-importance start-class article. I disagree with the above unsigned comment that this is an indiscriminate list – it's short, finite, wholly unambiguous and has no synth or OR issues, which certainly doesn't qualify as the classic indiscriminate list in my book. Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Tvx1 has already made the argument I would use for such a pointless, trivial list that doesn't need to exist. It only counts the numbers used by drivers since 2014, and a list accounting for all driver numbers throughout the sport's history would too be pointless (what would someone do with it?). Holdenman05 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The list only goes back to 2014 because that is when drivers were allowed to choose their own numbers. Before that, they were assigned by the FIA on a year-to-year basis. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – So? It's still numbers used by drivers in Formula One, which is what this list suggests. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree much with Aspirex. It is referenced with reliable sources and seems to be notable. I'm not sure if it is really a list though, as the in prose text is substantial, perhaps it should be renamed just to Formula One driver numbers or similar. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the prose is a bit excessive, Mattlore. While this is not an article I created, in fact I've made only a single contribution, changing the table to the format I had been updating in my sandbox (which has much less prose), it does appear someone based a large portion of it on my work, which would be why it seems I have an elevated interest in this discussion. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to mean that the prose was excessive, it is a good thing in my opinion. I was just questioning if the title should start with "List of". Mattlore (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered that same question myself. Aspirex (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a new concept, but it's widely commented on in reliable sources. The prose IMO is good, as it highlights how/why different numbers are used, although it needs to be sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the disposition of this article, but must point out that "not much appeal beyond the Formula 1 fans" (of whom I am not one) is invalid as a reason for deletion. It is merely a tautologous statement, that applies to every article, that it is only of interest to people who are interested in it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is simply not true. At least that's no the goal of our editing. Tvx1 21:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you care to explain why that is not true? There is certainly no requirement that every article should be of interest to everyone. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That we write articles and their content only thinking about a limited group of people. Our philosophy in the WikiProject is that any lay reader should be able to click the random article button, arrive on the article an be able to understand it completely without going to any other ones first. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, we should not be writing articles for F1 fans how drivers pick their numbers and for how long they keep them. The current season article lists the numbers that will be seen this year. What does this article do on top of that, that it makes that we must include it? Tvx1 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which section of WP:NOTGUIDE do you claim applies here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE as it is not a fanguide regardless if it's a new concept, also where are the notable historic uses (such as #27 when it was exclusively used by Ferrari in the 1980s and 90s and Nigel Mansell's red #5). Also, I don't see any List of NASCAR Sprint Cup driver numbers, in which have been far more notable than in F1 (such as Richard Petty's #43 and Dale Earnhardt's #3). In all, more deserving of a F1 Wiki rather than a Wikipedia page, if it does exist. Donnie Park (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but on the other hand, this list should be restructured as an article titled Formula One driver numbers (about the history of racing numbers) because as a "fanlist" (in this current state), there is nothing useful about it. Donnie Park (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...but the current state of the article is that it provides information about racing numbers, not just what you characterise as a "fanlist". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2016 (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.