Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship

McLaren Honda Power Unit.

There was a change removed due to un cited sources that Mclaren would have the Honda powerunit for 2017. As far as I am aware they have a 15 year contract but I can't seem to find a source so thats probably false.Georgeday868 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have a source, it can't be added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The only credible source I could find said "multi-year", which would apply to 2015 & 2016 only. Twirlypen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BBC source?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33479911 Pch172 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

As seen on my talk page here and here, the only reason presented has been generally "I don't feel like reverting edits", which does not fall under A7 criteria. --Twirlypen (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If all the references used in the 2016 article are removed what is left? If it is not an article independant of the content in the 2016 article then that is a reason for deletion and is why this article has been deleted before. (CSD A10) The content must have a high level of material specific to the 2017 season. --Falcadore (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that an AFD from 2010 has relevance to 2017 Formula One season? The 2010 AFD did not delete the article on the 2013 season that was over 2 years away. Yet the period for this article is under 2 years away. So the AFD is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If those references also apply to 2017, and should be removed based on them being previously used, then I'll find new sources. (Good heavens, the calendar is 90% similar to 2016. I've never ever seen a calendar change so unsubstantially in my life!) Further, I'll then remove all repeated sources used multiple times across the project since that is some sort of unspoken rule, as many of the older race reports are quite simply just copies of each other (moreso than this one is of the 2016 article, even) with some different names in place. Twirlypen (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No I don't consider it relelvant. Which is why I refer you to the deletion performed on April this year. Just three months ago.

And finding different sources that say the same thing doesn't change a damn thing. The CONTENT has to be independent of the 2016 article, not just the references. --Falcadore (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The intro and infobox is standard among the project, so there's no sense in debating that. As already pointed out, there are calendar differences between 2016 & 2017 (albeit only slightly), even two years ahead of time, we know this and it is sourced. The driver table, also due to the way we set it up (not showing teams until at least one driver is confirmed), will also not drastically change from 2016 until most likely well after 2016 has started (which wasn't a blocking point on the 2016 article I might add). I deeply apologize that I was able to source 3 of them this far away. We already have the tyre and potential rule changes in here, which aren't part of 2016, so quite frankly I find your argument for similar content to be substantially weak. None of this was known 3 months ago. Twirlypen (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the only thing backed by the similarity argument is was the GPoA information, but even that's changed now since the 2016 provisional calendar was released. Twirlypen (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The rule exists so people won't create articles into the 2020s and beyond with little actual real content. The fact that headings may be standardised doesn't alter anything. The drivers section and the calendar section are just extensions of news for news for the 2016 season - so those signing are not independantly notable. The German Grand Prix being alternated is also not new, it is long established. The wording itself demonstrates that the Grand Prix of America has been scheduled and delayed multiple times before, so again this is not new. So removing all that, all you have left that is genuinly new for 2017 is that technical regulations will change but we have no idea what it is, making it purely speculative, and you know what Wikipedia does with speculation. Leaving a tyre contract. That isn't enough to sustain an article is it? --Falcadore (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is why this was deleted as little as 3 months ago. The content was identical. But now the calendar is out, so there are differences. So what if there's one or two differences in the calendar? I had thought the concensus had been achieved on multiple occasions to include GPoA so long as there is an existing contract. Should we just wait until February of 2017 to create this article then? When the rules, lineups, & calendar are finally finalized for the final time, for real? There are way more content differences between this and 2016 than, let's say, nearly every race report article from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Twirlypen (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is different, no matter how awkwardly it's twisted around that it's not. I'm looking at both of them side-by-side and the fact that first the argument came up that the sources were reused (properly, I might add), and then because the content was similar, though not identical, is just comical at this point, considering the only portion of the article that shares any content similarities whatsoever is the lead. If the FIA has contracts with the same 21 venues year after year, that's NOT my fault and does not fall under A7 speedy deletion criteria, especially since everything is sourced, and neither is the argument "I don't feel like reverting edits". The fact that content similarities was brought up at all is just straight up comical when you look at 2016 & 2017 side by side. Please note I purposely left out the new entry tender because it very well might get accepted for entry in 2016, thus would not apply to this article. Twirlypen (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, comparing side-by-side. The lead is the same except for one sentence refering to dates. The data concerning Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton is the same. The calendar is only different because 2016 has announced dates and is essentially a list of contracted races, so it is in effect a list of races highly likely to occur. A prediction. It is around 12 months out from a calendar being announced. And the rest is covered above.

So it is far from comical. Or is it your point that they are not identical because the 2017 article leaves out some of 2016s content? In that event, it doesn't even remotely remove the fact that it has been copied from another article. --Falcadore (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Every single GP race article is copied from the previous year's event. Yet, we somehow can wrap our heads around the fact that, even though they started as a copy, they very quickly ended up being different. Watch the upcoming 2015 Belgian Grand Prix article once the redirect is taken away. Watch it and then nominate it for deletion, since I am assuming you're not being a hypocrite, when it becomes clear that the relevant information was copied from the previous season's event (IE: lead, race information, etc. before the event is actually run). How is this any different now that there are actual differences between 2016 and 2017? And as far as drivers, it was not even 6 months ago (still in 2015) that the 2016 article had 3 or 4 drivers, and that was never an issue then, so that's irrelevant here. Also, I have different sources for them as well. In fact, a quick check reveals that the 2016 article was created on 28 July 2014 and deletion was rejected then too. The 2015 season article was created permanently on 28 April 2013. What's today? Oh, July 29, 2015. This is completely in line with previous seasons. Twirlypen (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 article was created in March of 2012, the 2013 article in October 2011, etc etc etc etc etc etc with most of them being nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully, at that) by you. That appears like it's just a case of not liking it, despite the sources and obviously plain differences backing it up. Twirlypen (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Create, since there is some specific news for the year" – the exact edit summary of the creation of the 2015 article, at which point creation was no longer contested the deletion nomination was rejected. There are 2017-specific points here whether you like it or not. Lack of consistant, daily contribution at the beginning is irrelevant to the creation/deletion of an article. Twirlypen (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I for one objected to the creation of the 2016 article this time last year. The only argument that was presented for its creation was "This is the time of the years details for next season wil appear". Only at that point "next season" was 2015 and not 2016. This year again next season is 2016, not 2017. From its creation in mid-2014 until the end of 2014 nothing new appeared in the press regarding 2016. The only thing that happened on that article for months and months was vandalism, addition of unsourced speculation and a bit of edit-warring regarding the status of Alonso and Vettel. A lot of what is in this article is essentially speculation. Even those three included contracted drivers positions are not final by any means. We had Vettel with Red Bull and Alonso with Ferrari for quite some time on the 2016 article, because both were contracted. They both later terminated those contracts. And of course things like Robert Kubica and Jules Bianchi happen as well. The fact that this is a carbon copy of the 2016 content was evident through the German Grand Prix' inclusion. As became obvious during the 2015 German GP debacle here, the Nurburgring's contract became invalid once it changed ownership and no new deal has been signed as of yet. It's inclusion was simply copied along with the sources, which only referred to the Hockenheimring's contracts, from the 2016 article. I have only one simple question, Twirlypen. What's your rush in creating this article. Why are you in such a haste of publishing information on season that's two years away? A season which specifics (e.g. rules) have hardy been defined at all at this moment. Why it's it unnaceptable to wait until the 2015 season has been wrapped up and the article completed at which point 2016 has become the current season article? On a side note, Graeme Bartlett, at no point did Falcadore refer to a 2010 AFD. They referred in fact to criterium A10 for speedy deletion. Tvx1 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That may have been their intention that was clarified later. But a G4 speedy delete applies to a previous consensus based delete. A repeated speedy delete request should just use the same code - in this case A10. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 article was created in March of 2012, the 2013 article in October 2011, etc etc etc etc etc etc with most of them being nominated for deletion (unsuccessfully, at that) by you. That appears like it's just a case of not liking it, despite the sources and obviously plain differences backing it up.

The fact that a number of other editors also thought the 2014 article should have been deleted meant having the discussion was definately valid. If only a couple of editors agreed with me, then you would have a point. But you don't. Accusations of I DONT LIKE IT would then appear to be wide of the mark.

I can't find the deletion discussion, however when looking at the earliest history of the current 2013 article and finding no mention of a deletion discussion suggests it was deleted the last time it was raised prior to it's October 2011 creation. --Falcadore (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this is well within the timeline of season article creation for at least the previous five seasons, only because that's how far back I checked, so there "no rush" to create anything. I'm sure if I went back a further five seasons, it would confirm this timeline and window of creation. Also, there is unique information pertinent to the 2017 season wholly separate from the 2016 season, again such as the calendar and the tyres (which will be selected at the end of September), so it's not a "copy of the 2016 article". Therefore this nomination, by it's own very definition, fails A10 criteria.

Going down the list of criteria as outlined in WP:ACSD#Articles:
A1: No context: Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. – N
A2: Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project – N
A3: No content: Any article consisting only of external links, category tags [...]. – N
A5. Transwikied articles: Any article that consists only of a dictionary definition [...]. – N
A7. No indication of importance: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. – N, due to the article being well-sourced, indicated above.
A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings) – N
A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic – N, as there are unique attributes to and content pertaining to this season and this season alone.
A11. Obviously invented – N

Sorry, but there's no need to rush and if I take away all of the unique things then it's exactly like 2016 doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. You might think that falls wide of DONTLIKE, but it really hits the mark, especially when the main objection is "I don't feel like reverting" - which, by the way, violates WP:AGF by definition as well. Please just accept the fact that this article was created in a manner consistant with previous seasons and within Wikipedia guidelines. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying the calendar is unique to 2017. It's speculative with no one source gathering the information together as a calendar.

The unique attributes are ALL speculative. Is that something you are having difficulty with?

"I don't feel like reverting what on earth does that mean? I have no idea what that is supposed to be driving at. It's certainly never been anything to do with my objections. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's sourced with credible references stating that the FIA (sanctioners of the Formula One series) has a contract with each event and venue listed to participate in the 2017 season series. Whether or not it cumulates to be the same as the 2016 calendar (which it isn't - Italy and Germany are not on it) is pretty irrelevant. It's not difficult to understand. Also, this article is now substantially different than the one previously deleted, not nearly identical as stated on the template at the top of this article. Remove it as blatantly misleading. Twirlypen (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't feel like reverting is another user's main argument, not yours. Twirlypen (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I made the mistake of exluding G4 in my review. Whoops. Anyway, here it is.

Criteria for WP:G4:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." Which immediately further goes on to say... "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement." Alas, this also result in – N

This argument of yours is getting borderline absurd. You've done this with nearly every previous season's article. "It was deleted before, therefore it should always be deleted until I approve" is not AfD criteria. The fact that this has gone from "Please request G7" to, "Okay, I'll request A7 then" to, "Okay, maybe A10" to, "Definate gotta be G4" just shows how much rope this discussion is sliding down and the amount of straws the detractors are reaching for. Twirlypen (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett seems to be the only other user remotely in this discussion that understands the criteria. What are your feelings on this? I seem to keep getting railroaded with different nonsense "criteria" that I keep having to disprove time and time again. Twirlypen (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In yet another telling turn of events, this article was INDEPENDENTLY graded as "start class" – meaning by someone not participating in this discussion though familiar with the project. While I understand that the grade is arbitrary, it certainly merits noting that the project's quality scale indicates that "No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was me that rated this start class, this was based on how much content was in the page. I don't think this should be speedily deleted otherwise I would not be disputing deletion would I? However another user:DH85868993 assessed importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to wear myself out with these precedences, in this case ONE new circuit and ONE team being enough of a difference to warrant its creation. Can we pretty please be done yet? We literally had this exact discussion last year. Twirlypen (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We need another admin to come and decline the speedy delete. It seems as if no one wants to delete, but others are not yet ready to detag it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, Twirlypen, calm down. Stop commenting on the contributors because that leads nowhere. I still don't see what's the benefit of already having an article now on a season for two years from now. My "I don't like reverting", as you like to put it, has nothing to do with WP:AGF. It has to do with trying to prevent us with making the same mistakes as before. That the 2016 article had nothing but incorrect and reverted content added to it for months and months after its creation is a fact. That it had to be protected a couple of times is also a fact. In response to your apology on the creation of previous future season articles, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. A number of wrongs doesn't make a right. You failed to assert why in any of your mentioned cases why it benefited the encyclopedia and the readers to have these season articles created that early. And I hate to break it to you, but Falcadore's assessment is right. It was a carbon copy from the 2016 article and it is mostly speculation. I already told you that long-term driver contract can fail to be honoured for a list of reasons and even races contract's can be terminated, like we saw when the Nurburgring came in the hands of new owners during 2014 ultimately leading to the 2015 German Grand Prix not taking place. The fact that is was a carbon copy of the 2016 content was evident and several instances of poor referencing. The German Grand Prix was copied over with its sources on the 2016 race happening in Hockenheim and nothing actually on any track hosting it in 2017, while Lewis Hamiton's inclusion was copied with the same poor reference stating that his new contract could be announced in due course instead of one that actually confirmed his new contract. The too early creation of the 2016 article shows quite clearly that contacts sometimes aren't honoured. The 2016 article this time last year contained a Ferrari driver who never eventualised and two "contracted" races who aren't even on the provisional calendar (India and GPoA). This article contains two drivers who's status is based on them having a multiple-year contract that has them on the 2016 grid, a list of contracted races synthesized from their contracts putting them on the 2016 calendar —on of these races actually having failed to honour their contract for the four previous years—, two non-contracted races about which we basically say we don't know what's going to happen with, a literally speculative note that there might be some regulation changes and finally a note that there might be a new tyre suppliers. There's just to much mights and not enough confirmed details to have an article on a season so far away in the future. Heck, more details have been confirmed about the 2022 FIFA World Cup than about the 2017 Formula One season. Tvx1 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, really? Now one wants to delete this?? This discussion has just four participants, two of whom say keep and the other two whom very clearly say delete. Tvx1 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere - I think Graeme Bartlett wants it converted into an AFD rather than debate the topic. Procedure rather than content. --Falcadore (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a few pointers, number one, we used to create articles in the March of the current season for two seasons ahead. Number two, the articles leading and including the 2011 season were created in 2006. However, this should be deleted, as until the strategy group agree to implement (and not propose), this article has very little other content. Pch172 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Because this page is related to the upcoming FIA Formula one 2017 season) --90.213.142.54 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is an evolving page that will be filled in as new information comes to light --213.161.88.98 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)