This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Port Imperial Street Circuit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Port Imperial Street Circuit appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know the circuit does not have an official name just yet, but I have "given" it one. When the United States Grand Prix was first announced at Austin, the circuit itself did not have a name, and so we originally called the page "Austin Formula One circuit". I'm using the same logic here - because the New Jersey circuit is right on top of the Port Imperial ferry terminal, "Port Imperial Street Circuit" seemed like an appropriate name. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we get somebody to whip up a track map based on the Tilke plan real fast? I'm itching to submit this and the race article to DYK but a map would make it even better. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a second image is really necessary. A lot of street circuit articles, like Marina Bay Street Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit show geographical features in the map at the top of the infobox. I see no reason why we cannotdo the same for Port Imperial. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As stated, this is not an official name, and since this article is esssentially a split from the Grand Prix, why is it necessary to have it sepaarate page, especially at this point? Djflem ( talk) 14:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I oppose. As has been stated, there is a precedent for circuits and races having separate pages. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Would File:Port Imperial HBLR jeh.jpg this image be useful to illustrate the elevation change? -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A selection of fotos visualizes the circuit. Some may not be necessary but they do give an picture of the altitude changes, curves, hairpin, skyline mentioned in article (and w/o elaborate description) give a feel for course, and should be included Hudconja ( talk) 19:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted by The 359 above, the roadway are not race ready, therefore circuit remains proposed or plannned until it is Djflem ( talk) 10:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC).
Looking at your edits, Djflem, you clearly aren't a regular on the Formula 1 pages. And that's okay. But there are a few subject-specific terms that we use. There aren't actually accepted as official, though. When an event is started up, it needs to have a few things: a contract with the commercial rights holder, and a circuit plan approved by the sport's governing body. Before it has these things, it is in the planned stage. But once the contract has been signed and the circuit plan is approved, the event is confirmed. There can be no changes to the circuit layout without going through the homologation process. This is the stage that the circuit is at - a contract is in place, and the FIA have signed off on the layout. It is more than simply planned or proposed; it is in a state where it is assumed that it will happen (and only a disaster can stop it). Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the page has been a little unstable of late, with people adding and removing these two images:
So I thought I'd start up a discussion here as to why these images should or should not be included in the article.
Personally, I don't think they should be, for the following reasons:
I think that addresses every issue with the images. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The images show the proposed location of the proposed circuit just like map show proposed route. Djflem ( talk) 06:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature encourages inclusion of images and encourages visual learning, specifically effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. After several years of searching for an appropriate location in the metro region, the one at Port Imperial was chosen for several reasons (the elevation, the access, the marketing, the backdrop) as mentioned in article and countless references. Until such time as an actual circuit exits, which it does not, providing visual cues to help a reader understand where the circuit may be situated is extremely relevant. Djflem ( talk) 08:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles about proposed and on going construction projects ( Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project and One World Trade Center to mention two)} include images of the site. Djflem ( talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarification Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project shows a proposal (rendering) and the site because construction not started, WTC shows construction because it has. Djflem ( talk) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Above is of series of images which directly correspond to the keyed map in the infobox and the description of the proposed circuit as written in the body of the article.. Any of a number of these could be used in the effort to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.. Djflem ( talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is not overwhelmed with images. As Bushranger has said the article is better with the photos included, as it does, in fact, contribute knowledge of how the area the circuit will pass through appears Pre-construction photos of a site are appropriate for articles about proposed construction projects, Any reference to the roads used or about the location in general can be found in the numerous in-line citations and extensive media coverage about its choice of and the reasoning behind it. Djflem ( talk) 05:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Have recast the sub headers to reflect the fact that the article is about a proposed construction project, "Circuit" is incorrect since it doesn't exist. Shifted images tp reflect this since it is quite unclear why PM made the choice to add an additional picture (with a misspelled red link in the caption, by the way) of the ferry terminal, which has been corrected. The lay-out is fine and very common in Wikipedia, including Circuit de Monaco. Djflem ( talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This editing and reversion is growing tiresome quickly. Come to a consensus and stop editing the article to your preferential way, even if it has been days/weeks since the last edit and revert. The359 ( Talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have had to remove a section giving details of public relations events from the page, because I don't think they're particularly notable. I'm curicous to hear the logic behind their repeated inclusion, since all it amounts to is "some drivers come to the circuit and did some laps to get some attention on the circuit". Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear: You didn't "have to" do anything. You "chose to" repeatedly remove referenced material that has been in the article since March, using a misconstrued interpretation of Wikipedia:notability to reiterate your "point of view" (as in "I don't think") numerous times. Media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed (as in unbuilt, doesn't exist, planned, on paper only, theoretical, conceptual) street circuit is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Djflem ( talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear regarding established norms: Referenced material in an article for 2 months is considered consensus. You made the bold edit by removing it on numerous occasions to publish your preferred version. Please do not misconstrue policy (or create new ones: like photo evidence, for example) to suit your needs. Djflem ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Djflem ( talk) 03:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed it again. It's still PR bullshit and has no place being here. If you want to add a section on the circuit reception, wait until the drivers have actually driven the circuit at speed and are in a position to comment on it, rather than just doing a few demo laps in a road car for the cameras. The comments may be treated as unreliable becase they are intended to promote the event. They are advertising.
Djflem, you need to justify these edits before you make them again. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Media coverage of an event, place, or structure and how that event, place, or structure is promoted, viewed, and received is within the scope of articles about the subject, as seen, for example in Statue of Liberty, the paragraph you have provided, the one regarding the proposed New Jersey F1 circuit.
The reception from drivers ahead of the inaugural race was highly positive. Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton both praised the circuit, suggesting that it would be considerably more difficult to learn than other recent additions to the Formula One calendar. Jenson Button described the first sector as "spectacular", but remarked that he felt that starting second would be better than starting first as the placement of pole position put it on a steeper incline than the rest of the grid. Kamui Kobayashi, on the other hand, was less complimentary, claiming that he did not feel intimidated by the steep climb to the first corner as it was no different to Eau Rouge at the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and accusing the media of hyping it up without precedent. Mark Webber was also unimpressed, stating that while he enjoyed driving the first sector of the circuit, the second and third sectors were similar to other circuits on the calendar.
In June 2012, Sebastian Vettel did a promotional test run along the proposed route afterward saying, "This place is exceptional; there is no comparison in the world. Very soon this will be one of the races every driver wants to win." Commenting on the elevation changes and turns he said was reminded of the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and the Circuit de Monaco. According to Vettel "there are lots of quick, floating corners on this circuit and I think we'll exceed 200 mph here ... you've got to have big b---s to tackle a course like that. In August 2012, David Coulthard drove portions of the course to test out the roadways as part of the creation of a promotional video for Red Bull Racing featuring the street circuit and environs that also included demonstrations at Liberty State Park and reaching speed of 190 mph (305.78 km/h) while driving through the nearby Lincoln Tunnel.
As the circuit itself develops, so will the article about it, including if and when it is driven at speed. Djflem ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The entire purpose of these events was advertising. The drivers naturally talked the event up for the media.
You have made a bold edit. It has been reverted. You need to justify this edit, which you have not done, before you make it again, to do so otherwise would be edit warring
Here is the link to the edit Prisoner Monkey made: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Port_Imperial_Street_Circuit&diff=560277110&oldid=560160750 in which s/he deleted reference material. That bold eidit was rejected. There is no consensus to remove it. Can PM explain how they have come to the conclusion reached in last edit summary? Djflem ( talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is basically coming down to you two duking it out and both thinking you're right. If you want to break the deadlock, find outside eyes to look over this. Try WP:F1 again with a more blatant appeal, try WP:RFC. Do not simply start editing the page just because the argument has died down after the edit warring warnings were handed out.
I've tried to offer opinions but I quite frankly find the two of you extremely frustrating and stubborn to deal with on this matter. Further, I can see arguments for or against inclusion in the article, so I have no strong opinion either way. Find outside help. The359 ( Talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
OK children. The next time the article is reverted and/or edited to remove or add a large chunk of text, regardless of whether or not you feel you are right or the other person is wrong, I am requesting a page lock and taking this to WP:ANEW, because quite frankly this edit war is embarassing. I quite frankly don't want to go through the hassle of it, but the both of you are way out of line and you're both in the wrong. I really don't care which version of the article gets locked, because as of right now nothing is being accomplished by this rubbish. Honestly, I should be taking this to WP:ANEW now, but I'd rather this get settled in some sort of intelligent manner on its own.
Discuss, reach consensus, then edit the article. If the two of you can't agree, bring in outside opinions. If there is still no consensus, take it to the appropriate arbitration. No matter how long it takes, edit warring the article will not be tolerated. Come to an amicable agreement, then make the appropriate changes to the article if necessary. The359 ( Talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue relates to the inclusion of the "Demo runs" section of the page. The arguments for and against are here. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 08:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
With no further comments on this, I still feel strongly that the section should be removed, and have done so accordingly. It is spam. The function was a PR event, and the section does little to address that issue. The whole thing reads like the author's intention was to get the reader excited fir Formula 1 in New York, which is unacceptable. It is unnecessary, superfluous detail, and there has not been a single compelling case for its inclusion in the article. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Djflem, did you actually read the comments the other editors made? We have one opposed, one in favour of and one who supports the inclusion if the content provided some revisions are taken into consideration. I'm bemused ad to how you arrived at the conclusion that two are in favour of the inclusion The RFC does not aactually support any issue.
Also, you are still yet to supply an actual reason as to why this promotional bullshit is so essential to the article. The only rreason why it's even in the article at theoment is because it was in the article when another editor demanded that we find s consensus. I'd you had been ten minutes later with yyour edit this rubbish wouldn't be seeing the light if day. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I still think its inclusion is bullshit. I'm willing to tolerate it up until the moment the drivers give actual feedback on the circuit when they visit, since the point of the section at the moment appears to be coveting a driver's opinion, even if that opinion is PR rubbish masquerading as something notable. The "reception" section on the COTA page is what we should be aiming fir, and once it happened, the promotional bullshit becomes expendable bullshit. If the race doesn't go aheah (as has been rumoured in the past few days), then the article could probably be deleted. Either way, the problem is solved. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Considering that this race doesn't seem likely to happen, may be better to consolidate street circuit article to Grand Prix of America. Djflem ( talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Port Imperial Street Circuit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Port Imperial Street Circuit appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know the circuit does not have an official name just yet, but I have "given" it one. When the United States Grand Prix was first announced at Austin, the circuit itself did not have a name, and so we originally called the page "Austin Formula One circuit". I'm using the same logic here - because the New Jersey circuit is right on top of the Port Imperial ferry terminal, "Port Imperial Street Circuit" seemed like an appropriate name. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we get somebody to whip up a track map based on the Tilke plan real fast? I'm itching to submit this and the race article to DYK but a map would make it even better. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a second image is really necessary. A lot of street circuit articles, like Marina Bay Street Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit show geographical features in the map at the top of the infobox. I see no reason why we cannotdo the same for Port Imperial. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As stated, this is not an official name, and since this article is esssentially a split from the Grand Prix, why is it necessary to have it sepaarate page, especially at this point? Djflem ( talk) 14:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I oppose. As has been stated, there is a precedent for circuits and races having separate pages. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Would File:Port Imperial HBLR jeh.jpg this image be useful to illustrate the elevation change? -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A selection of fotos visualizes the circuit. Some may not be necessary but they do give an picture of the altitude changes, curves, hairpin, skyline mentioned in article (and w/o elaborate description) give a feel for course, and should be included Hudconja ( talk) 19:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted by The 359 above, the roadway are not race ready, therefore circuit remains proposed or plannned until it is Djflem ( talk) 10:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC).
Looking at your edits, Djflem, you clearly aren't a regular on the Formula 1 pages. And that's okay. But there are a few subject-specific terms that we use. There aren't actually accepted as official, though. When an event is started up, it needs to have a few things: a contract with the commercial rights holder, and a circuit plan approved by the sport's governing body. Before it has these things, it is in the planned stage. But once the contract has been signed and the circuit plan is approved, the event is confirmed. There can be no changes to the circuit layout without going through the homologation process. This is the stage that the circuit is at - a contract is in place, and the FIA have signed off on the layout. It is more than simply planned or proposed; it is in a state where it is assumed that it will happen (and only a disaster can stop it). Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the page has been a little unstable of late, with people adding and removing these two images:
So I thought I'd start up a discussion here as to why these images should or should not be included in the article.
Personally, I don't think they should be, for the following reasons:
I think that addresses every issue with the images. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The images show the proposed location of the proposed circuit just like map show proposed route. Djflem ( talk) 06:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature encourages inclusion of images and encourages visual learning, specifically effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. After several years of searching for an appropriate location in the metro region, the one at Port Imperial was chosen for several reasons (the elevation, the access, the marketing, the backdrop) as mentioned in article and countless references. Until such time as an actual circuit exits, which it does not, providing visual cues to help a reader understand where the circuit may be situated is extremely relevant. Djflem ( talk) 08:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles about proposed and on going construction projects ( Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project and One World Trade Center to mention two)} include images of the site. Djflem ( talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarification Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project shows a proposal (rendering) and the site because construction not started, WTC shows construction because it has. Djflem ( talk) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Above is of series of images which directly correspond to the keyed map in the infobox and the description of the proposed circuit as written in the body of the article.. Any of a number of these could be used in the effort to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.. Djflem ( talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is not overwhelmed with images. As Bushranger has said the article is better with the photos included, as it does, in fact, contribute knowledge of how the area the circuit will pass through appears Pre-construction photos of a site are appropriate for articles about proposed construction projects, Any reference to the roads used or about the location in general can be found in the numerous in-line citations and extensive media coverage about its choice of and the reasoning behind it. Djflem ( talk) 05:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Have recast the sub headers to reflect the fact that the article is about a proposed construction project, "Circuit" is incorrect since it doesn't exist. Shifted images tp reflect this since it is quite unclear why PM made the choice to add an additional picture (with a misspelled red link in the caption, by the way) of the ferry terminal, which has been corrected. The lay-out is fine and very common in Wikipedia, including Circuit de Monaco. Djflem ( talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This editing and reversion is growing tiresome quickly. Come to a consensus and stop editing the article to your preferential way, even if it has been days/weeks since the last edit and revert. The359 ( Talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have had to remove a section giving details of public relations events from the page, because I don't think they're particularly notable. I'm curicous to hear the logic behind their repeated inclusion, since all it amounts to is "some drivers come to the circuit and did some laps to get some attention on the circuit". Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear: You didn't "have to" do anything. You "chose to" repeatedly remove referenced material that has been in the article since March, using a misconstrued interpretation of Wikipedia:notability to reiterate your "point of view" (as in "I don't think") numerous times. Media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed (as in unbuilt, doesn't exist, planned, on paper only, theoretical, conceptual) street circuit is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Djflem ( talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear regarding established norms: Referenced material in an article for 2 months is considered consensus. You made the bold edit by removing it on numerous occasions to publish your preferred version. Please do not misconstrue policy (or create new ones: like photo evidence, for example) to suit your needs. Djflem ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Djflem ( talk) 03:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed it again. It's still PR bullshit and has no place being here. If you want to add a section on the circuit reception, wait until the drivers have actually driven the circuit at speed and are in a position to comment on it, rather than just doing a few demo laps in a road car for the cameras. The comments may be treated as unreliable becase they are intended to promote the event. They are advertising.
Djflem, you need to justify these edits before you make them again. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Media coverage of an event, place, or structure and how that event, place, or structure is promoted, viewed, and received is within the scope of articles about the subject, as seen, for example in Statue of Liberty, the paragraph you have provided, the one regarding the proposed New Jersey F1 circuit.
The reception from drivers ahead of the inaugural race was highly positive. Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton both praised the circuit, suggesting that it would be considerably more difficult to learn than other recent additions to the Formula One calendar. Jenson Button described the first sector as "spectacular", but remarked that he felt that starting second would be better than starting first as the placement of pole position put it on a steeper incline than the rest of the grid. Kamui Kobayashi, on the other hand, was less complimentary, claiming that he did not feel intimidated by the steep climb to the first corner as it was no different to Eau Rouge at the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, and accusing the media of hyping it up without precedent. Mark Webber was also unimpressed, stating that while he enjoyed driving the first sector of the circuit, the second and third sectors were similar to other circuits on the calendar.
In June 2012, Sebastian Vettel did a promotional test run along the proposed route afterward saying, "This place is exceptional; there is no comparison in the world. Very soon this will be one of the races every driver wants to win." Commenting on the elevation changes and turns he said was reminded of the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and the Circuit de Monaco. According to Vettel "there are lots of quick, floating corners on this circuit and I think we'll exceed 200 mph here ... you've got to have big b---s to tackle a course like that. In August 2012, David Coulthard drove portions of the course to test out the roadways as part of the creation of a promotional video for Red Bull Racing featuring the street circuit and environs that also included demonstrations at Liberty State Park and reaching speed of 190 mph (305.78 km/h) while driving through the nearby Lincoln Tunnel.
As the circuit itself develops, so will the article about it, including if and when it is driven at speed. Djflem ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The entire purpose of these events was advertising. The drivers naturally talked the event up for the media.
You have made a bold edit. It has been reverted. You need to justify this edit, which you have not done, before you make it again, to do so otherwise would be edit warring
Here is the link to the edit Prisoner Monkey made: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Port_Imperial_Street_Circuit&diff=560277110&oldid=560160750 in which s/he deleted reference material. That bold eidit was rejected. There is no consensus to remove it. Can PM explain how they have come to the conclusion reached in last edit summary? Djflem ( talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is basically coming down to you two duking it out and both thinking you're right. If you want to break the deadlock, find outside eyes to look over this. Try WP:F1 again with a more blatant appeal, try WP:RFC. Do not simply start editing the page just because the argument has died down after the edit warring warnings were handed out.
I've tried to offer opinions but I quite frankly find the two of you extremely frustrating and stubborn to deal with on this matter. Further, I can see arguments for or against inclusion in the article, so I have no strong opinion either way. Find outside help. The359 ( Talk) 08:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
OK children. The next time the article is reverted and/or edited to remove or add a large chunk of text, regardless of whether or not you feel you are right or the other person is wrong, I am requesting a page lock and taking this to WP:ANEW, because quite frankly this edit war is embarassing. I quite frankly don't want to go through the hassle of it, but the both of you are way out of line and you're both in the wrong. I really don't care which version of the article gets locked, because as of right now nothing is being accomplished by this rubbish. Honestly, I should be taking this to WP:ANEW now, but I'd rather this get settled in some sort of intelligent manner on its own.
Discuss, reach consensus, then edit the article. If the two of you can't agree, bring in outside opinions. If there is still no consensus, take it to the appropriate arbitration. No matter how long it takes, edit warring the article will not be tolerated. Come to an amicable agreement, then make the appropriate changes to the article if necessary. The359 ( Talk) 23:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue relates to the inclusion of the "Demo runs" section of the page. The arguments for and against are here. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 08:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
With no further comments on this, I still feel strongly that the section should be removed, and have done so accordingly. It is spam. The function was a PR event, and the section does little to address that issue. The whole thing reads like the author's intention was to get the reader excited fir Formula 1 in New York, which is unacceptable. It is unnecessary, superfluous detail, and there has not been a single compelling case for its inclusion in the article. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Djflem, did you actually read the comments the other editors made? We have one opposed, one in favour of and one who supports the inclusion if the content provided some revisions are taken into consideration. I'm bemused ad to how you arrived at the conclusion that two are in favour of the inclusion The RFC does not aactually support any issue.
Also, you are still yet to supply an actual reason as to why this promotional bullshit is so essential to the article. The only rreason why it's even in the article at theoment is because it was in the article when another editor demanded that we find s consensus. I'd you had been ten minutes later with yyour edit this rubbish wouldn't be seeing the light if day. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I still think its inclusion is bullshit. I'm willing to tolerate it up until the moment the drivers give actual feedback on the circuit when they visit, since the point of the section at the moment appears to be coveting a driver's opinion, even if that opinion is PR rubbish masquerading as something notable. The "reception" section on the COTA page is what we should be aiming fir, and once it happened, the promotional bullshit becomes expendable bullshit. If the race doesn't go aheah (as has been rumoured in the past few days), then the article could probably be deleted. Either way, the problem is solved. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Considering that this race doesn't seem likely to happen, may be better to consolidate street circuit article to Grand Prix of America. Djflem ( talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)