Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverstone race results

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 keep. L Faraone 04:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone race results

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

Clear violation of WP:NOT#INFO especially WP:NOT#STATS not to mention the possible can of worms a list like this would have if kept, as there are literally hundreds of notable racetracks and road courses many of whom has a better legacy than this track (like Monaco and Indy for two examples) Delete Secret ^account 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is far from indiscriminate (events at a specific race track) and there are no stats. Oculi (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not because these are stats - they're not - but because I don't think sports results by venue is quite encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a legitimate WP:SPINOUT of Silverstone Circuit; this is not "stats" but rather tables of winners at the track, which is, in fact, encyclopedic information. The "can of worms" argument is a red herring as most tracks' results are capable of being included within the tracks' own articles; in cases where WP:SPINOUT applies, though, going after the resulting spun-out articles for deletion isn't an advisible thing to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Silverstone race winners. Some of the red links need to be changed to a link to an article on the competition or at least the season, rather than on one race. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Peterkingiron. I've not come across these articles before, but they are just a list of winners, so have some value. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename and Comment literally hundreds of notable racetracks and road courses many of whom has a better legacy than this track. Hundreds? Silverstone is 66-year-old venue that has been home to the British Grand Prix all of the circuits life and was the original venue of a World drivers' championship event. It has been the leading venue for motor racing in Britain for over 60 years in a nation at the core of the sport. I think it would be difficult to find ten venues with a better legacy than Silverstone. It's like saying there are hundreds of more notable football stadia than Wembley Stadium. I reject the nominators arguement as deeply flawed having failed to approach understanding the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't spotted that, but it's a very good point, and I am frankly flabbergasted to see the nominator try to make such a point. That said, I could find ten venues with more of a legacy than Silverstone (Monza, Imola, Le Mans, Spa, Nurburgring, Monaco, Brooklands, Hockenheim, Daytona, Indianapolis all have more of a legacy to me) - but it's definitely a major international venue. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 30 June 2013 (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.