Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female racing drivers

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of female racing drivers

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

Per WP:SALAT, too broad in scope to be useful. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to Category:Female racing drivers per WP:CLN. I can only guess why the nominator thinks it's "too broad" (or what "useful"ness they're contemplating), given that the category of the exact same scope has fewer than 150 entries and only two relatively small subcategories. Regardless, even if we had reached that point the obvious way to deal with a list's scope is to subdivide internally with headers or, if there are enough entries, to turn into a master list of lists with the subgroupings split into sublists. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Female racing drivers. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. Also, allow time for potential expansion; this was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it was created. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Fast Ladies, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a list that passes guidelines. It isn't too broad. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2016 (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.