Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.129.109.94 (talk) at 23:08, 31 December 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was already deleted through an AFD discussion with unanimous consensus. At that point already the "rivalry" was inactive. A really can't see what has changed since then that makes this subject suitable for having an article. Tvx1 13:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is plenty of evidence that this is a notable rivalry (just flick through the citations), as unlike the previous article that existed and was deleted (which you seem to not realise is entirely different to this one) there are various reputable sources and news publications which describe and analyse the rivalry in-depth. If that is your only argument for deletion (that it does not meet notability requirements) then I disagree, as does the evidence and coverage referenced in the current article, which I will reiterate, is entirely different from the previously deleted article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Formulaonewiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given by the 'unanimous consensus' in the previous ADF discussion, which was, and I'll say it again, a completely different article to this one, was that the subject matter was not notable. However, this is simply not true. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and just a quick search reveals a huge number of articles covering the rivalry. Just a few of the many examples can be found here, here, here, here and here as well as just a quick glance through the 50 citations used in the article itself. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is currently being discussed at the F1 WikiProject because of concerns over the neutrality of sources, even those that come from normally-reliable publications. Large parts of the article rely on sources from the British media, and there is a question of bias. For example, Hamilton caused controversy recently, but the only reporting done on the subject by a major British-based source is an opinion piece defending him. I also have serious WP:NPOV concerns about the article; for instance, the lead goes out of its way to portray Rosberg as the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the underdog who got through on sheer grit; the article arguably favours Hamilton. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.111.7, your observations seem to confirm that the subject is significantly covered in reliable sources, even if their opinion goes against your own. And as WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", that supports a keep rather than a delete. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DeFacto. Surely your observations are evidence that the article content is notable. How about we work together to improve the article instead of just deleting it entirely because of your WP:NPOV concerns? Let's be productive, not destructive. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll be constructive if articles are necessary. And I don't see how this article is necessary. Especially when Prost/Senna or Schumacher/Hill don't have dedicated articles. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the notability test. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a policy-based argument has been made—there are NPOV issues present and some of the sources are questionable. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not deletion policy reasons for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), they are trivial "because I don't like it"-type reasons, which, even if it was agreed that they actually existed, are easily fixable. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV issues stemming from the sources fits DEL-REASON. This article is not neutral; it clearly takes Hamilton's side. The sources used are not neutral; they clearly take Hamilton's side. There has been no attempt to find balance in the sources—look at the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: it takes the time to give weight to Niki Lauda's defence of Hamilton (without explaining why Lauda though Hamilton was in the right), but does not explore any criticism of Hamilton's actions. Or look at the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, which strongly implies Rosberg deliberately ruined Hamilton's qualifying lap, but only offers "several pundits" opinions' as sources. Or look at the language used throughout the article: "a perfect start", "a thrilling race", etc, which is not language suited to purpose. Or the analysis I did of a lead paragraph here. I read this article and all I see is a one-sided representation of the subject which barely meets the notability guidelines, if at all. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching rather a lot with that 'analysis'. Seems like you're also pushing your own agenda/POV on the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's there in black and white. Hamilton did something that was subject to criticism at the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix. However, the article only offers Lauda's defence of him. It should also offer the criticism of him so that the reader understands the issue. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.108.197, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, let's be productive and improve the article. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I think deleting the article is the most productive thing to do. The time and energy that would be spent rewriting it could be better used developing more important articles. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was it being a "productive thing to do" part of the deletion criteria? --Formulaonewiki (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks WP:BLP. I could go through and remove everything that is not neutral because it is clearly pro-Hamilton, but the article would be little more than a stub. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP 1.144.108.197, I can't see where you think it breaks BLP. Please give one specific paragraph or sentence as an example. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto — WP:BLP says the following:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies"

Those three core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. I believe this article breaks BLP because it fails NPOV, as evident in this paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix:

When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Niki Lauda spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right."

This breaks NPOV because it only speaks in support of Hamilton. It offers a single opinion supporting Hamilton's actions, but does not offer any justification for that opinion. The article really should address the following questions:

  1. Who is Niki Lauda (it is the first time the article mentions him) and why do his words carry weight?
  2. Why did Lauda think Hamilton was in the right?
  3. Who, if anyone, spoke against Hamilton, and what were their reasons?
  4. How did Hamilton and Rosberg address the issue in public?
  5. How did Hamilton's decision affect his relationship with Rosberg?
  6. What measures (if any) did the team take to manage them in future?
  7. How did those measures (or lack thereof) influence the relationship?
  8. How would Hamilton slowing to allow Rosberg through affect his race, and what did Hamilton think the effect would be?
  9. What did the team expect would happen if Hamilton let Rosberg through as planned?

As it is, the article details an incident in which Hamilton disobeyed team orders, and his decision affected the race result. In providing a defence from Lauda, the reader can infer that his decision was controversial (why else would Lauda need to defend him?). However, the article only provides a defence of Hamilton and so the reader may come to the conclusion that Hamilton's actions were justified. That to me breaks NPOV because it is leading the reader to a conclusion: that Hamiltion defied team orders, got a better result out of it, and that he was completely justified in doing so. 1.144.108.211 (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NPOV might not be a primary reason for deletion, but this article is at least in part biographical, and NPOV is a cornerstone of BLP. The majority of the sources used in the article come from British publications despite the rivalry being between a Brit and a German, and I have concerns that their coverage is one-sided. For example, Hamilton made some comments recently that were controversial, but Autosport—one of the major publications used by WP:F1—did not report on it. They rarely report on any criticism of British drivers? How can we say this article meets GNG when the sources are one-sided and of questionable neutrality? 1.144.108.118 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP 1.144.108.118, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. You should go to the article talkpage with any reliable sources that give a differing view, and argue the case for an adjustment of the POV balance there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP 1.144.108.118, the argument you are making about NVOP is clearly a content discussion, and not relevant here. Additionally, you are wrong in saying Autosport did not cover the controversial comments, as shown here. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not ignored, just disagreed with. An unsupported challenge to the balance of a small portion of the content is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable subject, it is something that needs to be discussed on its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an example of moving the goalposts. You asked for "one specific paragraph or sentence as an example" of how the article breaks BLP. I did exactly that, demonstrating how the article fails NPOV and by extension BLP. But apparently that's no longer good enough. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, I wanted clarification of what your idea of NPOV was, and having seen it, I am not persuaded that you have a case. You are comparing what's written in the article with your personal views and interpretation of history, and not with the views of notable commentators via other reliable sources - that's OR/SYNTH on your part, and not NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if some points are incomplete and even if that does render them as non-NPOV, that is an entirely different matter to the article being irreconcilably non-NPOV and requiring deletion. Take the points you are concerned about to the article's talkpage, along with any supporting reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont see any signs this rivalry is notable. Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title. Maybe the sources mention a rivalry (which might be logical as they were teammates). This discussion on this page is far to detailed to be encyclopedic and the comments above by both sides of this looks like WP:BLUDGEON. Maybe if there is a couple of google books entries that chronicle the rivalry, but if we are just going to us industry dribble about two drivers this is far too low a bar for inclusion in wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are more that have rivalry in the title, and even more than that with rivalry in the body of the citation. I said the "the first source of the [...] article" includes 'rivalry', I didn't say it was the only source, did I? And no, we should not create rivalry pages for all team-mate pairs, no-one suggesting that. The only time we should create a page for team-mate pairs is if there are multiple sources which give evidence of the notability of said pair. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, there is no dedicated article for the Senna and Prost rivalry. Unlike Hamilton and Rosberg, there were accusations and admissions that Senna and Prost had deliberately crashed into one another to settle World Championships.
This article, however, consistently takes Hamilton's side. In Hungary 2014, the article defends Hamilton's decision to defy team orders; in Monaco 2014, the article criticises Rosberg's actions without sources; in Spain 2016, the article clearly suggests Rosberg was responsible for the contact (by pointing out the speed difference) despite the stewards' ruling.
Between the lack of sources, the inconsistent approach to notability compared to other similar subjects, lack of links to any other articles, and the clear bias that the article shows, where is the redeeming value of the page? 1.129.109.94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton–Rosberg_rivalry_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=876222831"