Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races

From 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 Delete Consensus is measured against policy and notability is pretty explicit that multiple independent reliable sources are required to assert notability and this article fails this. The debate asserts that the article can be sourced in due course but this misses the point that the sources need to exist in the first place. This has not been established and consequently this falls for deletion. Before anyone starts bombarding my talk page about this close I'd like to place on record that I'm a) a big fan of top gear and b) willing to undelete this if reliable independent sources are provided. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gear races

Top Gear races (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The topics of each article show no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and so do not appear to meet the primary notability criteria. The contents of each article is already adequately covered in several sections of the main article (Top Gear (current format)).

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Top Gear Cheap Car Challenges
Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car (redirected to one article)
Power Laps(redirected to one article)
The Cool Wall

Guest9999 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep This is facile and ridiculous † DBD 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you mind if I asked why? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]]

*Keep - I agree that the articles don't really have any current outside sources for notability, but I think that Top Gear has enough coverage that they can easily be found. As for being adequately covered, I personally find the unduplicated information quite useful. Admittedly that's bordering on WP:ILIKEIT, but it seems relevant to me. mattbuck (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's hard to overstate the popularity of Top Gear and it's a big call to say no sources or reviews discussing these segments could possibly be found. Nick mallory (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolute Keep Just got a game for Christmas with one line on the board called "the Cool Wall". No idea what it meant, wikied it, got full answer here and, may I add, had a good time reading it all. Isn't that what Wikipedia is (great) about? Why censure/delete it? This is just nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.201.175 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep You missed The Stig BTW. I am afraid that all these articles are now a British institution. Jeremy Clarkson has written many books where secondary references could be found even if he is one of the presenters, not to mention motorsport, motoring and mens magazines. It is of great interest to many (and notable) how fast an F1 driver can get a family saloon round a track. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply a book by the presenter of the show (and participent in the events) does not count as an independent source so cannot be used to establish notability. Personnaly I have not seen articles about the events in independent motoring magazines or publications. Whilst they may have been mentioned in passing several times I doubt they have recieved significant coverage (happy to be proved wrong with examples). Notability is not inherited (links to essay), being part of a notable show does not make something notable in its own right. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Note and while the current article doesn't necesarily make it clear I think The Stig is actually notable due to sources such as [1] and [2] (found after a quick Google search, I'm sure there are more out there. [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Absolute Keep"No evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?

It's a Television show. You want to know in which episode a particular event happened you can research it here. There is no variable. It's either right, or it's wrong. And it's right. Furthermore, they are not covered in the main article. These are independent pages, and rightly so, there's already so much up on the main page. Keep it.[[User:KeepTopGear 0:18, 9 January 2008]]— 99.232.250.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

  • Or... if you want to find out what episode something happens in you could look at the existing article, List of Top Gear episodes, which lists every episode and what happened in each of them. Also "KeepTopGear" does not appear to be a registered user account. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Absolute Keep: As the other users who want it kept suggested. It's a national treasure. All the necessary information is there. The idiot who suggested these articles should be deleted needs their head examined! JRRobinson (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - JRRobinson, please be aware that calling people names does not help your cause (WP:CIVIL). Much as I hate to say it, we do need sources for this all. Oh, and Guest 9999, please just add your signature as ~~~~ not [[~~~~]]. mattbuck (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge (See below for reason for change of opinion) into the main Top Gear article. While the content is valid and verifiable, there does not seem to be sufficient grounds for creating individual articles about segments of the show. - fchd (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per fchd. anemone│projectors 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's about a huge hit in Britain, for which I can not understand, but notable nonetheless. Each article could stand by itself with a bit of editing. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:There is no deadline - and this applies to finding sources. The content of this article is valid and verifiable. I don't agree with the idea of a merge/redirect. --Solumeiras talk 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, but why is this better server in a seperate article and not merged in to the main TopGear article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current Top gear article is rather large as it is, without adding this information back in. mattbuck (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - There is no deadline (an essay) only applies if there is currently the possibility of improving an article to the standards required by policies and guidelines. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Keep. The material passes the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and cannot be adequately covered through a merge with the main Top Gear article due to the existing length of the latter. Cynical (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all - sources (at least looking through a search engine) are extremely hard to come by, what I have find are videos uploaded onto websites (legally dodgy), blogs and forum postings (both of those not acceptable as sources as per WP:V), therefore the articles have no chance of meeting that aforementioned guideline. As for merging the text into the main Top Gear article, not even the text for any of the nominated articles in the main article is referenced! Strictly under WP:V, that could all be deleted as well (I won't, but it does need referencing). The same arguments that are affecting video game deletions could also apply here, in the way that specific elements and databases of a video game are being deleted (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations), this should also apply to television programmes as well. You could go as far as class the articles as Top Gear fancruft and trivia (it could violate WP:NOT#GUIDE if television programme segments were included in the same reasons as for other topics, ie. game and travel guides). Due to the above arguments, notability cannot be established for all the articles. Don't get me wrong, I love Top Gear, and its appointment to view television for me every Sunday, but I feel that specific sections of episodes (in the same way that parts of video games have been deleted for the same reasons) are better served by a fan site or a off-site Wiki. --tgheretford (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP. Its interesting, its notable and it is enjoyed by a worldwide audience. I dont see a problem here. --Bud (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Strong KEep". I'll poop in your shoes if you don't keep it.64.130.183.199 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolute Keep These are the only real informative pages on this subject. Why are they up for deletion? 81.110.245.215 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Filled with useful trivia information that would otherwise clutter up the Top Gear Main page. Kindalas (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MERGE most of the info was originally at the main Top Gear Article, and somehow got spinned-off for reasons I don't know right now. I suggest merge to one article separate from the main Top Gear Article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Wikipedia:There is no deadline and it meets notability requirements. I oppose a merge because the others are essentially a subarticles of the main Top Gear article. Per summary style, these should be kept & expanded accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have seen no guarantee that anyone will add references from third parties to meet WP:V and WP:N --tgheretford (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is an informative piece on a segment of an immensely popular TV show. Might I add that the Power Laps section is very informative, and useful. I have to ask this, why in the world would you propose this for deletion? BlackbeltMage (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Absolutely notable, and take a look at Wikipedia:There is no deadline for the slow development, if you must do something, merge them altogether into Top Gear segments or something of the sort. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/

Definitely Keep (C) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline syas the following: "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." and "Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea.". [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Keep - moderately sourced and definitely notable. Sourcing and references should be expanded, but that is not a reason for deletion. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Moderately sourced? The only references quoted are to the programme's official website! That certainly can't be counted as a Reliable source! - fchd (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The program is the only source of and arbiter to the information. Any third party sources would merely be deferring to the program as the source of their data. There is no third-party source possible. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well then, that makes a case that the articles definitely fail WP:N. Remember you need multiple, non-trivial, third-party references. As much as I love the programme, I'm afraid that changes my vote to Delete. - fchd (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think another problem is that as the show somewhat straddles the line between fact and fiction it is debateable how much any of it can be presumed to be verifiable by primary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Keep with major edits - There are 2 issues here, the first is the notability of a section of a TV programme beyond the notability of the programme itself, the second is that the segment of the programme has spawned a performance benchmarking phenomenon (http://www.fastestlaps.com/track1.html) for production cars. I would suggest that the major information be merged with the Top Gear page (i.e. that the laps are a weekly segment of the show, that they are production car times, that 'The Stig' drives the cars listening to nonsense, and so on), while the list of times, including information about the times which Top Gear do not list, what the supposed time penalty for driving in poor conditions is reckoned to be, that the "Top Gear Track" is in fact a track laid out on Dunsfold airfield by Lotus and utilised by Top Gear under the guidance of the track's operator, and any other encyclopedic type information distinct from the semi-fictitious Top Gear centric information (which as suggested will reside on the Top Gear page) would reside on this page. It might seem that I have an Axe to grind, due to the ongoing discussion on the Power Laps page about 'unofficial' times. Think what you like, but consider my proposed solution on it's own merits (or lack of), thank you.Meio (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Top Gear Test Track is available and could be expanded with both Power Laps and SIARPC if you so wish (and possibly eliminate two of the articles in one pinch). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That merger seems quite reasonable. Someone should do it ASAP before the pages are summarily deleted and all content lost. - mattbuck 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Fear not, for I may or may not have saved back-ups. Tehe. † DBD 12:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Will the Closing Mod please keep both Power Laps and Star in a Reasonably Priced Car intact till one of us can figure out how to shunt it together into Top Gear Test Track and make the wiki linkys work? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Looking at the discussion thusfar, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that any admin is going to close it as delete. [[Guest9999 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
You never know. Starting the merge. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, merger complete.....but the AfD template is screwing with the redirects. Also strikethru the now redirected pages. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the AfD tag from one of the new redirects pending the conclusions of this discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Clear delete all, as per the nominator. These sub-topics lack the significant independent coverage required for them to break out into their own articles. They are covered to a sufficient extent (in line with their sparse coverage in external sources) within the main article. This from a massive TG fan who has worked tirelessly keeping The Stig free of cruft. Zunaid©® 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge - now that the power laps and SiaRPC have been merged to Top Gear test track, I suggest that the other two articles be downsized, and Cool Wall merged into the main article, and Cheap Car Challenges used to marginally expand the episode list. - mattbuck 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Cheap Car Challenges, merge Cool Wall with main article - Cheap Car Challenges are a major feature, and are very notable. Using the episode guide, it is hard to find detailed information on these. Cool Wall is notable, but short enough to place in the main article's subheading for it due to its indefinite hiatus. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Major? Cheap Car Challenges? Try around what, 90 episodes, divided by 8 challenges, over 10 seasons....less that 10% of the bulk of the episodes made. SIARPC and Power Laps would be "Major" parts of the show, not Cheap Car Challenges. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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.