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 procedural close. By that, I mean there is clearly no consensus below to delete, but by the same token, I also believe that the commentary around this article needing to be just about blown up and started again have not been sufficiently disproven by those advocating for "keep" (and in some cases, those who !voted keep agree with the sentiment).

Rather than recording a "keep" outcome which provides some level of protection against AfD renomination and a vindication of the article in the state it is in, I am entering a procedural closing of the debate which has an end result of the article being retained, but with a massive caveat that some significant rewriting and removal of content needs to happen - otherwise we will be back here in 3-6 months, and it is less likely the community (and a second closer) will provide the same opportunity at that juncture. Daniel ( talk) 17:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Ferrari Challenge

Ferrari Challenge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is getting out of hand. This page has been redirected multiple times by various people due to concerns about a lack of secondary sourcing and general WP:NOTWEBHOST issues. However the redirect keeps getting reverted into the same inappropriate article, with either no reason at all, or a reason that is invalidated by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As all parties involved are now approaching or have already exceeded 3RR (myself included) I'm sending the page here so that consensus for deletion/redirection/whatever can be formalized and subsequent enforcement of that consensus (whatever it may be) can be handled without worrying about edit warring. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 02:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep – There are bulk sources on the series from several reputable outlets, for example, Road and Track ( link), Motorsport.com ( link), Sports Car Digest ( link). Coverage of individual Ferrari Challenge series can be patchy but I believe there is enough secondary coverage to justify an article for the overall series. 5225_C ( talk •  contributions) 08:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - 5225C has clearly demonstrated notability from multiple reliable sources. The nominator has not given a particularly clear rationale for nominating the article for deletion. I have no idea what WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with this article or why it should be deleted. An article being poorly sourced does not mean the sourcing does not exist. An article being poorly written or structured does not mean it cannot be rewritten. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 08:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep The sourcing in the article is mostly terrible, but there's some good coverage to be found: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Meets WP:GNG as an overall series article. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is a well-known one-make single series championship like Porsche Carrera Cup, Lamborghini Super Trofeo etc. If there is no problem for keeping the pages of those championships, it will be also unnecessary to delete the page of Ferrari Challenge. As it was mentioned, if the sources are problematic, the page should be nominated for deletion instead of redirecting this page to the page of Ferrari 348 directly. I and Formula Downforce will try to add different sources for this page to avoid the deletion of this page. Apeiro94 ( talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Very strong keep per 5225c. Citing WP:NOTWEBHOST and edit warring over it when GNG is very clearly met is worthy of a WP:TROUT for all (2 editors, the nominator and Drmies, certainly not "various") involved in trying to remove this article. Taking Out The Trash please save everyone's time and just withdraw. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Unstriking with the additional comment that AfD is not dispute resolution. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Nominator comment I will not withdraw. @ Drmies: is an administrator, and I trust their judgement that the page is not appropriate. I can't speak for them, so I hope they will chime in here, but I would find it hard to believe that an admin with as much tenure and experience as Drmies would repeatedly redirect a page for no reason or false pretenses. Note that I personally do not hold a firm opinion one way or the other (in fact, the page is quite WP:TLDR for me to read through all of it) - if it wasn't clear from the nomination statement, this is a procedural nomination in order to stop the edit war and establish a definite consensus. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 16:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• NOTWEBHOST is perfectly appropriate for the article in its current state, GhostOfDanGurney. Edit warring--well it takes two to tango (in this case there's four or so?), and if the other partners simply revert without a valid reason other than "other stuff exists", without taking the trouble to add even ONE single reliable secondary source, then who do you think is the guilty party? You say "the GNG is very clearly met"--but that's obviously not true. Neither is it true, Apeiro94, that it is provably "well-known"--if it is, why haven't you actually proven it in the article, which is nothing but a list of results and little flags? With primary sourcing? You don't have to "try" and add sources: you could have done that all along, but you didn't get farther than "some other one-make series such as Porsche Carrera Cup, Lamborghini Super Trofeo have their own pages", which, again, means [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]--and User:HumanBodyPiloter5, you got it wrong: it's not about what that has to do with the article, but it's the argument that the other edit-warriors employed, just look at the history. Finally, Apeiro, this is not article improvement: you simply added more primary links. That's not how one proves the GNG is met. Drmies ( talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• User:5225C, I commend you for actually looking for sourcing. I am not impressed by the little newsy bits on Motorsport.com, and the one somewhat substantive article on Sportscardigest has really only this to say, "The Ferrari Challenge is designed to allow Ferrari owners to compete on some of the world’s most famous race tracks, and over the years has provided joy for not only the drivers competing, but also the millions of enthusiasts who enjoy watching Ferraris in motion in their natural environment, the race track." One can't base an article on that though one could argue that helps notability. The things you indicated at Road and Track look a little better, but all you did was point at some links: which ones are substantial enough to let you write actual content, other than just result? User talk:Jovanmilic97, the first of your links, from Sportscardigest, I already quoted from that. It's not much. The second, the Italian source, it's better but it's about cars more than about the event. The third isn't bad, but "Hagerty Insider" is hardly a widely used acceptable source here; isn't it just another website? The fourth, from Racer, that's OK--but it also proves again how many of those magazines are so close to the industry and the events that they are often just mouthpieces.
  So no, I am still not convinced that this is anything more than a hobby. If someone rewrote the article using the best sources I might be convinced, but all these links even taken together are just so incredibly thin. Drmies ( talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sounds like you may have a wider issue involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport and some of it's commonly used sourcing, perhaps? Racer and the Motorsport Network (motorsport.com, Autosport, etc.) are pretty standard, Racer especially for US-centric motorsport series such as IndyCar and IMSA. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  "The second, the Italian source, it's better but it's about cars more than about the event." - For what it's worth, this article probably should be primarily about the cars rather than the events they participate in, as that's what the sources cover - a lineage of spec racing cars produced by Ferrari under a particular moniker. Information about the events may also be included if the sourcing is available, but it probably shouldn't be the focus of the article. The problem here is that the article is poorly structured and written with a lot of tangential and poorly-sourced material thrown in, not that the article's subject lacks notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 22:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • • • No no--the car has an article. The cars have articles. This is about a racing event. The article's subject is not a car, it's a race. Drmies ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  How is the article's subject a race? Which race? Where and when was this race held? This article's subject matter is fairly unambiguously a lineage of racing cars and the single-make spec-racing series they compete in, with the vehicles receiving most of the significant coverage from sources when compared to the events. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have big problems when the vast majority of an article seems to be regurgitating a database, with extra bits from a chat forum and youtube. If you remove all referencing that is from the sponsors and organisers of the event, or is blog/chat material, how much remains? Even if the topic does turn out to be notable, this is not the correct way to reference an article, and some of it reads like a brochure for would-be participants. I am unimpressed. Elemimele ( talk) 17:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over comes to mind. Drmies ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I would agree that WP:TNT could do this article some good. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per 5225C and Jovanmilic97. Clear demonstration of meeting GNG. AFD is not cleanup. Strange nomination and comments from opposers which in some cases don't seem to be about this article. Shouldn't have been BLARed again after being restored, per WP:BLAR. A7V2 ( talk) 23:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Agreed AFD isn't clean-up, but WP:TNT is appropriate for articles that are so poor they are beyond clean-up. Good sourcing is non-negotiable in all articles. I need to clarify that my comments were about this article, and should be understood as a !vote Delete, without prejudice to recreation of an article based on sources that are independent of the organisers and sponsors. Also agreed, an article should not be blanked more than once. Nevertheless, the obligation is on the person who puts the material back in, that it must be supported by proper sourcing. If the article is kept, there will have to be a lot of work on it. Elemimele ( talk) 16:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure why you want to delete the contribution history of a topic which meets GNG. "It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article" - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  To be clear, I don't think the article's contribution history should be deleted, but I think the article is in a poor enough state that if someone wanted to completely rewrite it that may be warranted. Regardless, AfD is not cleanup. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  And to that point, if someone really does want to apply TNT (and actually start over, not just detonate and run for cover), then a better WP:ATD such as draftifying is far preferable to hard deletion or even redirection in this instance. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{( work / talk)} 14:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per above. Lots of sources and lots of incoming links for a notable topic to anyone interested in motorsports or Ferraris. Some of the comments by the people who want to delete it sound inexplicably vindictive. Which database is being hosted, exactly? As far as I can see only the season results point to (a number of) databases, and these references were obviously compiled from a number of sources over a period of time. The sources for the main aspects of the article pose no problem. I know everyone keeps saying " WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", but if this article was to be deleted then so should about 60% of Wikipedia.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  02:46, 29 January 2023 (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.