Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Notability of amateurs in professional motorsport

Latest comment: 10 years ago131 comments12 people in discussion

A debate has opened up between myself, User:Pc13, User:Lukeno94, and User:Andy Dingley, specifically here. The discussion started over Lukeno redlinking every single driver listed in the 1978 24 Hours of Le Mans, as he has been doing for several other Le Mans race reports for a time now, under the belief that every driver who has participated at Le Mans is inherently notable. My belief, as well as the belief of Pc13, is that not all drivers who participate at Le Mans are notable because many of them are pure amateur, gentlemen drivers who simply buy their way into a seat, participate, and have almost no other motorsports activity that would qualify for notability, at least as established by WP:NMOTORSPORT. The contention is that although Le Mans is a famous event and is full of professional and famous drivers, it is not one that requires any sort of achievement in motorsport in order to be allowed to participate (such as speed through qualifying or licensing through past experience), and although it has been part of various national, international, and World Championships, it is itself treated as a stand alone event with its own unique rules and organization. This was then extended further based on the fact that sports car racing in recent years has established a hierarchy for drivers, with emphasis on clearly defining amateur and professional drivers, both with the introduction of purely amateur classes (Blancpain Endurance Series, FIA GT Series, FIA WEC, ELMS, etc), as well as the FIA's ranking system for drivers based on racing experience (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze).

I believe that the key to the first bullet point of WP:NMOTORSPORT is that the emphasis is on professionalism, and in that regard professional drivers, as in ones that are paid for their services through their winnings from that series, are inherently notable, while those that pay their way into the race seat, even if it may be in what would be viewed as a professional series, are of questionable notability. Keep in mind the difference between amateur and paid drivers, in that paid drivers do have some experience and talent in order to qualify to fill a race seat and would likely meet the guidelines for notability anyway.

In the end I believe my point is that, although Le Mans is world famous, participation in it is not grounds for notability simply because almost anyone can participate. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I can understand the viewpoint, I fail to see why an amateur competing in a race is not-notable, when a "professional" driver competing in the same event is. Formula One drivers such as Maldonado and Chilton have bought their way through lower formulae and into F1; although Maldonado won a race, Chilton has not achieved very much of note. You can bring up the Superlicense, but that isn't extremely hard to get, given that people whom have had merely average results in lower formulae, and have done enough distance in an F1 car can get one. NMOTORSPORT, as it stands, makes no differentiation whatsoever between an amateur driver, and a professional driver; it merely places things squarely in the ballpark of the event. As far as I'm aware, there is no amateur category in ELMS, although there is in the FIA WEC. There is a fundamental flaw, however, in some of The359's argument; the late Allan Simonsen, as well as Bruno Senna, neither of whom were amateur drivers, raced in the LMGTE Am category of the WEC in 2013 (Senna on one occasion, Simonsen on three). So just because a driver is competing in an "amateur" class doesn't make them an amateur; it can often mean they're simply less experienced, or, as we see above, it can mean absolutely nothing at all. The report also neglects the fact that I link in teams and cars whenever doing these edits as well; the latter being my main priority, as it occurs whenever I've written a new article on a car, and I also go and clean up any pointless redirects, or create more accurate ones/use better links wherever possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I can sum it up on your first statement. A professional is not notable simply because he participated at Le Mans either. He is notable because of his other achivements and his status as a professional racing driver. How many professionals don't participate on a national level? Being a professional inherently makes them notable, not Le Mans.

Maldonado won the GP2 championship, an international series, how exactly did he buy his way through the lower formula. As I said before, this is confusing a pay driver, who has some talent but is promoted through money, and an amateur driver, who is merely out there for the experience.

And all drivers at Le Mans are rated. The Amateur category has limits on who can drive. Yes, Simonsen and Senna were not amateurs, because one professional is allowed on the team. However the other drivers have to be Silver or Bronze. Roald Goethe on their team was a Bronze, he's a classic car collector who participates in historic races and only raced because he owned the car he was racing. The point is we can tell quite easily who is amateur by looking at them on a case by case basis and not automatically assuming that Goethe is notable just because he drove Le Mans. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Maldonado has bought his way through the majority of his career, although he did also win various things on the way. The way things stand though, as I've been saying, it is the event that makes one notable, not whether they're professional or amateur, based on the current wording. Certainly these days, not just anyone can race at the 24 Hours of Le Mans; only entries from teams that are well-regarded can compete. Prior to that, for a long time, you had to set a quick enough time in the test session to be invited to race - but I can't remember exactly when that started, and when it was changed to the current format. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Le Mans has always been by invitation, and those invitations are only to the team, not to drivers. The team can invite whomever they want to drive for their cars. Le Mans has had a pre-qualifying session for a time in which so many cars were invited, but only so many moved on to the race proper, but the key element is still that they were all invited.

How Maldonado earned a seat in F1 is irrelevant, he still has earned his notability based on his results. He didn't buy a super license. Maldonado is so far displaced from an amateur driver that it is apples and oranges. Maldonado is not a Roald Goethe or a Kevin Weeda or a Howard Blank or any of these gentlemen drivers. Maldonado is completely off the point. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The notability is for competing in the race, and you've actually got things backwards; when there was pre-qualifying, only the cars that were successful enough in their class got invited to compete in the race. I wasn't arguing that Maldonado or Chilton weren't notable, just using them as valid examples. And a 24LM driver still has to earn their license, even if the requirements are lower; it's not something you can just pick off a shelf. Most racing series have a mixture of "amateur", "pay drivers" and "professionals"; it's something that extends a long way beyond sports-car racing (although that is the one with the most prevalent "amateur v pro" comparison), from the bottom to the top. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd give my opinion. If all a driver has done is to drive in a single Le Mans race and finished in an relatively insignificant position (say, 35th), then has he really done enough to warrant a whole article about him? I don't think so. If one races in five Le Mans as an amateur, without success, should he have an article? I would say so. I think it really depends on what they did in Le Mans and outside of it. The distinction should not be amateur or professional, or whether they drove in Le Mans; but overall impact they made on motorsport, and a lot of Le Mans drivers have not done enough. Maybe an article (or multiple articles) on Le Mans drivers who fail the notability guidelines could be created, and then all the drivers could be linked, and info could be exist on the drivers who aren't notable enough for a full article. Surely that pleases both sides of this argument? —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If the notability criteria, or consensus, was for multiple races at Le Mans to be needed for an article, then I'd be perfectly happy to edit within that, and to check carefully how many entries each driver has made before linking them; it'll slow things down a lot, but it would get rid of any dispute. So I'd be fine with that proposal (although an article that contained all the drivers who fail the criteria would potentially be enormous, depending on what the criteria actually stated, and would contravene policy). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely a simple list of all the drivers that have driven in a Le Mans 24 Hours race (similar to the List of Formula One drivers) wouldn't fail the criterion though (however, it may need to be two or three articles due to length). Using that, it shouldn't be too difficult to track down who should and who shouldn't be given articles. —Gyaro –Maguus— 00:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to establish how many major events each driver has entered; it's just time consuming, that's all. The List of Formula One drivers is not a good comparison, since there is no dispute about their notability, and besides that, the number of drivers who have raced in F1 is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number who have raced in the 24 Hours of Le Mans (which has been going on for far longer, and has almost always had much bigger grids). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Scrap that article idea then. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, folks! I'm having a similar discussion in the Spanish-language sister wikiproject. I think that relevancy should be determined on results, not on professional status. If drivers win major professional races, then they are relevant. If they win minor races or have poor results in professional races, then they aren't relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That is more or less the agreement here. I, however, would use overall impact on motorsport rather than by sheer results. —Gyaro –Maguus— 17:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as well with basing things on results. For starters, that would put this Wikiproject at odds with the vast majority of other areas, which determine things based on where a person has competed (and, by extension, how many times they have competed there), not what they have achieved. For starters, what defines a good result? Some drivers will be regarded as doing well for scoring a handful of points, or even a point; others will only get recognition for winning things. The "results" criteria is even less suitable when you consider that different drivers have access to different hardware - and it isn't always the best drivers who get into the best cars (or even decent cars). I'd be more than happy to have the criteria reworked, but not to that angle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NMOTORSPORT's first entry has always struck me as problematic, but I'm not sure what is getting people's knickers in a twist here, After all, Le Mans on its own is not a "series". It has formed part of a few, but you don't really "compete in a series" if you just enter one round. Nevertheless it does need some looking at. In the meantime, here's a thought: how about we use the standard WP:GNG as a starting point? To be able to write an article on a driver you should be able to cite multiple, significant, third-party sources for the person, that attest not just to their existence but also their notability. Pretty much all F1 drivers are covered by this as even the the less well known ones have their own dedicated pages at most F1 stats sites and places such as F1 Rejects. Drivers who are professionals in other series of some standing will have been covered in some form by multiple specialist media sources (i.e. profile pieces, significant coverage in race reports, news of their career, etc.). If all you can say about a driver is that they have a name, a birth date, and that they competed in a race then that's not encyclopaedic, that's a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Pyrop e 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

F1 drivers are going to meet GNG without a problem, and no one is really disputing that. The same goes for GP2 drivers, and for most semi-regular or regular BTCC drivers as well. However, a lot of very notable drivers don't meet GNG, because all the coverage they get is directly linked to the races they've done, and reports on those races. NMOTORSPORT may be problematic, but it's not that much more or less flawed than the vast majority of other sport-related notability guidelines; particularly with regards to "routine" coverage. I wouldn't write an article on a driver whom had only ever competed in one major/"professional" event, and had done nothing else, but as it stands, I could do so and it would be acceptable to do so, hence why I link in everyone that has a full name. Then again, I prefer to focus on the car aspect of things anyway, in article-writing terms. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

These things are context-specific. In the context of a motorsport driver, having your performance in a race discussed in more than a perfunctory "X finished in Y position" manner, in a significant source (e.g. Autosport etc.), does go some way to indicating notability. However, that would still have to be on multiple occasions or in multiple sources. I disagree that NMOTORSPORT suggests that an article could be written for a driver who had "only ever competed in one major/"professional" event, and had done nothing else" as the guideline specifically states they must have competed in a "series". One race does not make a series. Pyrop e 23:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the 24 Hours of Le Mans has formed part of a series, and the guideline categorically states "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." - that's one single race, and that could literally be "drove for 5 metres, car's clutch failed, driver never got another shot". So I'm afraid that what I said is still correct, and your comment isn't accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Entry to the 24h race does not imply entry to any series that might include it. If you can show that they took part in the race and were included in the series entries then perhaps you have a point on that score. But that is why I said I have a small problem with the way that guideline is phrased. And by the way, it seems very odd that you are arguing so hard for a course of action that you apparently don't support, or was all this redlinking just a stalking horse to get people talking about this topic? Pyrop e 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm...honestly quite surprised that this is even being discussed. At the risk of invoking "other stuff" - nobody would be contesting whether or not an otherwise-"amateur" driver who "drove for 5 metres, car's clutch failed, driver never got another shot" in the Indianapolis 500 would be worthy of a page. There are a few - very, very few, but some - individual races that, whether they are, or were, part of a series or not, establish notability for a driver because that driver competed in them. Indy is one. The 24 Hours of Le Mans is another. Period, full stop, Q.E.D.. Now whether or not an article can be written that satisfies WP:V for many of those drivers is very much an open question, but let's not confuse that with a failure to meet WP:N. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Starters of the 500 are capped at (usually) 33 people per year, all of whom have to satisfy the organisers that they are sufficiently experienced and competent that they are not going to be a danger to themselves and others. Even 'rookies' like Jim Clark had to pass the speedway's tests before they were allowed to run. How many people since WWII have driven in the 500 but weren't either professional or otherwise notable as amateur drivers? There are over 160 drivers at Le Mans each year, and the entry requirements are quite different. It is perfectly possible for a wealthy businessman – whose only other involvement in motorsport is as a gentleman amateur in a national-level GT championship or recreational historic racing – to participate as long as they have the right licence. Take a look at people like Nick Mason. If he hadn't been a member of a gazillion-selling rock band he would be a nobody in racing terms. Simply competing at Le Mans does not confer any instant notability on a driver; there are simply too many of them for them all to be notable. Pyrop e 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

When did there being "too many" become a standard of notability? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If every man and his dog can do it, what's notable about it? If you are arguing that participation in an event confers the presumption of notability, then you must demonstrate that participating in the event generally makes people notable. Clearly it does not, as there are plenty of people who have driven at Le Mans for whom the only available record that we have of their life is the presence of their name on the entry list. GNG is not some gold standard to which all pages should aspire and that can be circumvented by a specific category notability standard; it is the minimum standard. As the GNG itself says, even if someone conforms to GNG they may not in fact be notable. That is the point that NMOTORSPORT and others come in. Pyrop e 04:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course no one would write an article on a driver whose sole action was to drive for 5 metres in one professional race, and never did anything; but it is technically within the notability guidelines. And if they're a regular driver, or have done several races, in a national-level GT championship, particularly if it was one of the bigger ones (the British one obviously springs to mind), then they would pass notability guidelines anyway. But Bushranger's comments about racing in the 24LM being an automatic notability generator is one that I agree with; I'm not talking about everyone who entered being considered as notable. At the end of the day, I don't see why it matters if someone is paying to enter a race, or being paid to enter the same race; it's what the race is, or is part of, that should be important, and indeed that's what the notability guidelines say. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence is based in faulty logic. NMOTORSPORT does not supplant GNG, it augments it. If a driver does not pass GNG then they are not notable, period. Even if they pass GNG they may not be notable, as GNG itself states, and NMOTORSPORT then exists to help determine whether they are notable or not, in a motorsport context. By redlinking a name you are implying that there is a reasonable likelihood of that driver being sufficiently notable for an article to be written. When considering drivers in the 24 hour race this is clearly garbage. There is not a single driver for whom the mere fact of their participation has rendered them notable. Show me the biographies. Show me the magazine profiles. Show me the news articles discussing their ongoing career. Drivers who have won, driven for many years, been killed, or otherwise created some extra news story may become notable because of the race, but even they are very few and far between. I find your blithe insistence that someone who has done "several" national-level GT races "would pass notability guidelines" a bit odd, and also indicates that you don't really understand the purpose of determining notability by using objective criteria. The way people pass the notability test is by providing evidence that other people, not connected to them, have taken notice. It is perfectly possible for someone to have run around in the midfield of the British GT championship for years and for them to fail GNG. Why? Because they aren't sufficiently notable for even the specialist press to have bothered writing an article about them, or for them to have been a significant part of an article about some related topic. If they've won races or appeared on the podium a few times they have a better chance. If they've won the championship then they almost certainly will pass GNG. But just by driving in races? No. Same logic with Le Mans. Driving at Le Mans may be a notable event in someone's life, but does it make that whole life notable? No, again. If Le Mans were an "automatic notability generator" then it would automatically generate notability for those who drive in it. The mere fact that there are plenty of Le Mans drivers who fail GNG proves that both you and Bushranger are wrong in your opinion. Pyrop e 02:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of your comments here border on the nonsensical. By redlinking a name, I am indeed implying that there is a reasonable likelihood of an article being written on these people - because a driver who raced (not entered) in this event is notable based on our notability guideline. It appears that you have absolutely no idea what NMOTORSPORT actually says, and you blindly follow GNG as if it is gospel truth. I'll say this again, maybe you'll understand it; almost all subject-specific guidelines don't rely on GNG, otherwise there is no point in having them. Claiming things such as "no one has bothered writing an article on them makes them non-notable" is utter bullshit; prior to me finding it, no one wrote an article on the Zytek Z11SN, despite that winning the LMP2 class of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the ELMS in 2011. With just the example that was brought up on my talkpage, one driver passed GNG easily, one of them had one substantial source, but nothing else, and the other failed it - but all three met NMOTORSPORT, and that's all that matters here based on our guidelines. However, once again, it is clear that you are disregarding those guidelines completely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I love the fact that you chose your Zytek article to try and contradict me, that really does show you don't understand what you are talking about. You see your very first edit comment in that article's history, what does it say? You were the first to write an article on that car on Wikipedia, but you certainly weren't the first ever anywhere. I'm not disregarding NMOTORSPORT, I am merely pointing out that it doesn't replace GNG, it augments it. I mentioned very early here that I don't like NMOTORSPORT as it stands and this whole argument is a very good example of what is wrong with it. Merely having driven in the 24 race does not bring you to the notice of the world at large, as is proven by the lack of sources for so very many drivers, so that guideline is absurd. Pyrop e 22:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I may not have been the first to write an article on that car anywhere, but thanks for confirming that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is indeed your entire position. The guideline may be "absurd" in your viewpoint, but that doesn't change the fact that nothing I have done has contravened it. And I also said earlier that I'd be happy to see it changed, particularly to follow an NFOOTBALL-style line with a "fully professional races/series" list drawn up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, you are priceless. I disagree with the first line of NMOTORSPORT, as I said to you very early on in this discussion, but that doesn't change the observation that GNG has priority over NMOTORSPORT. I also disagree that merely having driven a car at Le Mans makes people inherently deserving of a Wikipedia article, because the evidence shows that having done so does not automatically make people notable. That's an objective measure, with the yardstick being the fact that articles and other coverage of the subject already exists (or, in these cases, doesn't) outwith Wikipedia. That being the fact, it does rather make that first line of NMOTORSPORT look badly thought out, at best, and misleading at worst. So far you have not offered any hard evidence for your position, just some fetishistic deification of the literally thousands of people who have driven at Le Mans. If you consider these people all notable, please do provide some evidence for that. Pyrop e 18:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But that's not how you should go about linking stuff. You might think that those articles are likely to be written, but until somebody actually writes them, all you get is dozens of red links. Please explain how the article is improved by having a bunch of red links inside a table. If you want to have articles on those drivers, teams and cars, first you write them, then you add links to the pages. Pc13 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a redlink. If a name is not linked, it is unclear if there is an article there or not. If there is a red link, you know there isn't an article there. A lot of people will write articles based on turning redlinks to blue; it is less common for them to do the same for no links. And if you haven't noticed, I do write articles, which is why I'm adding in the links whenever I do a new article. I don't understand why people are getting their underwear in a twist and thinking "OMG REDLINKS R BAD THEY MUST GO"; policy supports their inclusion, after all. Once again, the names I link to all meet NMOTORSPORT, and there is no policy that says there has to be an article to link to it; quite the opposite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But you're making several mistakes while adding the red links, especially in regards to team names. In the 1978 Le Mans article, you had links to "ROC La Pierre du Nord", which doesn't exist (it should be Racing Organisation Course). Neither does Mogil Motors (it's the sponsor of a group of mechanics based around driver John Cooper), Mondelo ASA Cachia (it's merely ASA Cachia), Grand Touring Cars Inc (it already exists as John Wyer), Cloud Engineering (it's actually linking to an article about data storage), or Haberthur (it should be Porsche Club Romand). There's a link there to Cheetah Racing Cars, when the Cheetah car that raced in Le Mans was from Swiss manufacturer Charles Graeminger, not the Australian brand. So if you don't actually know what you're linking to, why should I assume people are going to create new articles? Based on linking mistakes, even? Pc13 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm making mistakes in team names, feel free to draw up a list and I will fix every single error. The Cheetah one must've been an oversight, because I know for a fact that I made sure a lot of the links to Cheetah went to the correct firm (I remember fixing it in the List of Group C cars article, and elsewhere). Some of the complaints you have there are merely non-existent redirects, and aren't inaccuracies; some, like the ROC one (which I should've spotted, in fairness) are errors that I shall fix. Why should you assume people will create new articles? Because I do, and that's one person straight off the bat. It would be more helpful if you wrote some of the articles, rather than moaning about redlinks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tangential to this debate, I'm in favor of using more red links on sports car articles. There are a number of times when I have written an article for a notable long-retired sports car racer and it has frankly been very difficult to find every mention of that driver in various sports car articles and link to him. -Drdisque (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why I usually link everything; I know how much of a pain it is to have to go digging, and I still find that I've missed things! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that is the whole point of the debate. It doesn't really matter bringing up the notability of certain drivers, ultimately because those articles don't exist. And if that's the case, there's no point in linking to them. Especially if new 50 to 100 red links are created in articles that are mostly made up of results table and not text. That's mainly why I've been erasing the links, even to drivers I feel are notable enough to have an article, like Manfred Schurti or Dick Barbour. It's even worse with the team names, which are being done haphazardly and without any research to see if they're applied correctly. Linking to "ROC La Pierre du Nord" in the Le Mans 1978 article, for example, is nonsensical, because La Pierre du Nord was merely sponsoring Racing Organisation Course. Pc13 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For the possibility of this discussion resulting in modifying WP:NMOTORSPORT, I'd like to state my opinion. I feel it is very important to realize notability guideline has never been a policy, but a guideline that "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". In other words, it is not a rule. (The development of notability in Wikipedia is well outlined in "Notability in the English Wikipedia"). It was born out of the necessity to limit the attempt to create a page on every 'interesting' person including porn stars in tabloid fashion.

On the other hand, Neutral Point of View is a non-negotiable policy that all editors and articles 'must' follow, and I believe preservation of minor view points comes with the requirement provided a sufficient due weight. Notability (and 'significance' and the weighting) is established only through a view point, and the fact that at least one editor is providing his/her time to create an article with some reasonable effort represents a view point that deems the notability to exist in his/her mind.

WikiProjects often have the tendency to treat the guideline as the rule, criticized for being "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." (Note 5 on the above link). We are lucky not generally having to deal with comics and porn stars, and without arguing for a simple red-linking of drivers, I am against a stricter reinforcement of the guideline.

This discussion made me wish for the lists of who competed the least distance in Le Mans, Indy 500 and all of F1. Participations in such events require effort, and such a view point on the effort/reward ratio is a valid one at least in my mind. Of course the promotion of variety of view points (and easier notability standards) results in messy presentation of articles which WikiProjects hate, but the last thing Wikipedia wants to be is a cleanly sensored publication with rigidly formed and unified view point. Yiba (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Notability ... is used as an editorial metric to determine topics meriting a dedicated encyclopedia article. In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." That sounds fair to me. To provide pages that are merely a name creates a spotty, disjointed encyclopedia, that lacks the continuity and readability that makes Wikipedia a joy. That's why orphan pages are flagged as well. I'm not sure how you work "point of view" into all that. The whole point behind Wikipedia's notability guide is that there is an objective standard to measure notability against. If you can find sufficient significant secondary sources to demonstrate notability then go ahead and write an article on whomsoever you desire, there's no censorship. Pyrop e 07:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason NPOV was brought up, is because while GNG is a guideline that is treated as Holy Writ (as was said), NPOV is the policy that is...I wouldn't say 'honored more in the breach than in the observance', but that it is often treated as a secondary concern while the slings and arrows of outraged GNG referencing get shot back and forth.

It's worth mentioning that the pages in question state "Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies" - with no mention of "notability" at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone values a cleanly organized encyclopedia with non-overlapping contents and well-defined notability and topic organization standards, then Wikipedia is not the place to look for it. What makes Wikipedia a joy, to me, is its variety of view points in the selection of topics and the editing of articles. My point is that notability can't be established without setting a point of view, meaning that the judgement of notability is an automatic reflection of a point of view the judgement was based on. With this background, the necessity to set the notability (or topic selection) standard in Wikipedia resulted in the 'guideline' as a necessary evil, not as a set policy or a rule to be promoted. "Don't allow it if it violates the guideline" is in fact treating the guideline as a rule. If a WikiProject, which often extends its own function from collective improvement of article quality to enforcing (censoring) topic selection, sets and enforce the guidelines beyond the necessity to deal with porn stars and similar nonsense, then there is the danger to supressing/censoring other view points (that deems a driver or a race is notable, for example). But in the end, this is just my opinion that I wanted to state here, and I know many editors in WikiProjects, especially good ones with deep knowledge in a field and a lot of vandals and idiots to deal with, do not agree. Yiba (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember mentioning "cleanly organised" or "non-overlapping". What I pointed out is that an encyclopedia should be readable (hence Wikipedia's emphasis on prose) and have a structure that allows you to flow from one topic to another. The organisation itself can be all over the place, but dead ends are counterproductive. If all a page says is "X was a person, of unknown age or history, who once drove in this particular race" then what does that add? Hey ho, bang the 'back' button, and swear under your breath at the nincompoop who just wasted 30 seconds of your life by cluttering this encyclopedia with uninformative cruft. If the only place that links to their article is the results table from that particular race then what has clicking through and the consequent disruption to your reading gained you? Yet again I also find your POV argument spurious, and actually lacking in internal consistency. Any topic can be written about so long as you demonstrate that people other than you have taken notice of them. If you are the only person who thinks they are of note then that is a case in point of POV, almost a dictionary definition. You think they are, the rest of the world does not. Which of those positions is the neutral one? Pyrop e 23:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

May be the point of discussion is becoming clearer that the issue is of dead-end links. If this is the sole case on the red-linking of drivers, then my bringing up the notability guideline opinion could have been inappropriate, as I am not arguing for the red-linking. I agree that prose and readability is important, but at the same time, there are many other important factors that might come in conflict. It's the matter of prioritizing in the balancing of all those indivisually important matters/goals we should strive after. In this prioritization, the importance scale in Wikipedia is established as NPOV, NOR and Verifiability come on top, followed by other content policies (such as WP:TITLE), and then Notability and other guidelines such as WP:Prose.

It is so important to realize that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.", and in many cases of Wikiprojects enforcing (deleting/merging) topic selection (often in the name of Notability guideline), I feel the projects may be twisting the scale by suppressing the minor view point that feels the topic is notable in the case that minority editor can satisfy Verifiability and other requirements, including that the minority position is held by a not insignificant group. If such cases arise in an article/subject, Neutrality (not in the general sense, but in Wikipedia term) requires a recognition and description of the minority view with proper weight. Although it seems the application of Neutrality on topic selection and notability has not been published, the same concept/position should apply, and it is healthier, in my mind, to err on the side of letting the minority view stand in the cases with uncertainties because it is closer to Healthy Conflict than an elimination. As I saw the possibility of WP:NMOTORSPORT being modified, and as I didn't like the way it is written now, I just expressed my opinion on it. I don't know who was the first woman to compete in Le Mans, but she is notable not because of the result, professional/amateur status, nor distance raced. Yiba (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking your example, the first woman to drive at Le Mans was Odette Siko. She is most certainly notable for that achievement and, guess what, she has been noticed. She has been written about in a number of books – such as Fast Ladies: Female Racing Drivers 1888 to 1970 by Jean François Bouzanquet, and Fast Women: the legendary ladies of racing by Todd McCarthy – and has a few web pages out there that discuss her career. Doubtless there is even more out there in French, but not speaking the language I haven't looked. This is what I mean by an objective measure of notability: people outside Wikipedia have taken notice. If all you have to do to justify a Wikipedia page is show that someone, somewhere, appears in the historical record for having done something then what is the point of worrying about notability in any category? It basically boils down to a single editor saying "I have heard of this person". I agree that NPOV and verifiability are the cornerstones of maintaining Wikipedia as a quality product (well, we try), but to then say that beyond those few nothing else really matters is bizarre. Pyrop e 19:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a solution to this. We list, in a sandbox or in a WP:MOTORSPORT subpage, all the Le Mans drivers without an article at the moment (maybe with a little background info, like Le Mans attended). We look at each driver, and judge whether they pass notability requirements (those that make the decisions leave signatures). We make two (or three) sections on this page, one for those who pass the notability requirements, one for those that don't and optionally one for those that need to be reconsidered or discussed. On Le Mans articles, we (red)link those that have passed (since they can have articles) and we leave the ones that either have not passed or do not pass unlinked. I understand that this is a long, difficult and awkward process, but it should be able to solve the issue on a driver-by-driver basis, which is how, in an ideal world, we would be looking at this situation. —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There are 3140 drivers who took part in Le Mans at least once. This isn't F1. It's a lot more common. Do you actually want to make this list? --Pc13 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a list of the drivers without articles, so not 3140, more like 1250–1750, which yes, I understand is still a lot. The list itself is not an article. And since there is no deadline, it doesn't matter how long it takes. It is solely for deciding which drivers need articles. The list would just be the names of drivers and the years they competed, no wikilinks, just "driver name (####–####)". Once the drivers that should get articles get them, they will be removed from the list. It can be split up into multiple lists if needed. —Gyaro –Maguus— 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, although it does come down to what exactly we say those requirements are. Certainly anyone who meets GNG is going to be notable, I don't think anyone is disputing that - but what are the race-based requirements? And that's probably the issue; we're struggling to agree on what they should be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say a mixture of WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. I'm pretty sure that it will be easier on a case-by-case basis, because each driver will be different. —Gyaro –Maguus— 13:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to work through the lot in a gradual process, but I'd need something semi-concrete, like everyone who finished Le Mans is notable, for example. But I will look into it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend I've read all this, but when I start an article, my main thought is "Can I write a reasonably substantial article about this person/thing?" If all you can muster is a couple of lines, then that person probably isn't notable, and what will you be achieving? What will you really be adding to the encyclopedia? If you can find enough sources to produce a few referenced paragraphs, then there's a fair chance the subject has done enough in his life to be notable enough. I understand the spirit of GNG to be basically that.

I remember when someone tried to delete Xavier Perrot as not notable because his article said that all he'd done was finish 10th in a Grand Prix in an F2 car. I dug around and it turned out he'd been a European hillclimbing champion and won an F2 race, among other things. All added together, it makes for a notable subject and a moderately acceptable article. Any Le Mans driver who is being considered for an article should probably have something similar in his career so that we end up with a half-decent article, not an unexpandable two-line stub. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like writing two-line stubs, and anyone who takes a look at the articles I've written will see that. Sometimes you have to go digging a little more, and that's the sort of thing I enjoy when writing an article - just as long as it doesn't turn out to be fruitless! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the crux of the discussion about notability and the over-broad application of NMOTORSPORT. For some series (e.g. F1, GP2, CART/Indy) there is a very high likelihood that merely having participated indicates that you will probably pass GNG – i.e. sources will be out there for you to dig out – as the standard of performance and exclusivity of entry means that only very accomplished individuals with significant experience (some previous record of achievement in their sport) will ever get to that point. Hence NMOTORSPORT included that first clause as an indicator of notability. Unfortunately it was phrased badly (introducing the spurious professional/amateur distinction) and there are some cases of prestigious events where the exclusivity and entry standards are much lower (e.g. Le Mans, Monte Carlo Rally, the old Lombard RAC rally) but which may have formed part of a championship series. In these cases mere participation is not a good indicator that the person may be notable. You have argued above that appearing at Le Mans makes you notable, but there is simply no evidence for this being the case as for a surprisingly large number of drivers (hundreds at least, and possibly >1000) the sources that you would need to write more than just "X was a person who drove in the Le Mans 24h race in year Y" just don't exist. Remember that, in Wikipedia terms, notability "... is used as an editorial metric to determine topics meriting a dedicated encyclopedia article." It is a term that has real utility, and isn't simply a case of an editor thinking that the subject did something noteworthy. Pyrop e 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue I personally have is that GNG requires non-routine coverage, which a lot of very successful drivers in major, but slightly more niche, events may not have gotten in traditionally accepted reliable sources. It would indeed be absolutely crazy to write an article on anything that you couldn't find any reference on at all, and I doubt anyone would debate that. However, there are plenty of drivers who receive a lot of routine coverage ("X is racing in event y"), but not much beyond that. And this applies for some drivers of reasonable note as well - try finding much that isn't routine "he finished in position x", "he is driving for team y", "he is entering event z" for Alister McRae, for example; there's a little bit, but a lot of it is lost amongst the routine stuff. And if you try and tell me he isn't notable, then I will probably spend the rest of the day laughing. As it is worded, the 24 Hours of Le Mans does convey notability without question for the years it formed part of the World Sportscar Championship, or any other major championship like that. The grey area would therefore be the years that the 24 Hours of Le Mans was not part of a major championship. I would have no problem with any sensible change to NMOTORSPORT, and indeed I would lodge that, at the very minimum, the driver should've finished a race in a professional series, rather than just competed; I would also support the drawing up of a "fully professional series" list, or replace the "professional" criteria with a "series that make you notable" list. I'm perfectly happy to draw a draft up for that list in my userspace; in fact, I probably will do at some point. On a very tangential note, we really need to bring the driver infobox out of the dark ages, and use something better than br tags to separate the entries. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well for McRae there are plenty of non-routine sources, try here, here, here, here, here, here and, oh flippin' heck there's loads. And that's only just skimming the first couple of pages of a fairly basic Google search. Once you start digging down into newspaper and magazine archives you'll find tons. None of these are routine appearances in entry or results lists, or throwaway mentions in an article devoted to something else. All demonstrate that McRae easily passes GNG. The point I'm making (again) is that notability isn't a merit badge you get for having done something, it is a status that you achieve through people having taken notice of you. If people have taken notice there will be sources such as those I've shown you for McRae, at least a couple. If there aren't, then QED you are not notable. See how that works? Pyrop e 22:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Must try harder. #1 is routine; it says he's returning to the championship. #2 is a routine interview after winning a class. #3 doesn't appear to satisfy RS, although feel free to prove me wrong on that. #4 is another routine announcement of him competing in an event. Ditto #5. #6 counts as non-routine coverage. 1/6, not a very good score there. See what I mean? People only ever usually get coverage for entering events, scoring results, moving teams, and that's about it. Which is why GNG being the only benchmark is a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Must try reading. The supporting documentation for GNG states that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." #1 does not just announce his entry, it discusses his previous career and provides a direct quotation from him discussing his feelings and aspirations (not routine); #2 announces not just his result, but again discusses his career to date, provides background on his entry and preparation, and goes on to discuss his performance in the event in some detail (not routine); #3 you may have a point about RS, but assuming good faith it does seem to be an original, in depth interview with McRae rather than a copyvio blog post or fanboy wittering; #4 has, in addition to the announcement, detailed discussion of not just his but also his family's involvement in motorsport, a discussion of the event, and a quotation from the rally organiser singling out McRae's entry as being special (not routine); #5 singles out McRae as one of only two drivers, from an entry of 500, who are deserving of special note, and whose opinions are sought and quotes provided (not routine); and #6 is an article specifically seeking his opinions and interpretation on an event that affected a few hundred people in the industry, as well as quite a few other drivers who were not asked their views (not routine). The key here is "critical analysis". These aren't just half-inch sidebars stating "X finished Yth", a single sentence in a race article, or mere results table entries, they are lengthy prose pieces that focus on McRae in particular and provide context and analysis of his involvement in whatever the topic under discussion is. Doing this sort of digging and analysis is what establishes notability, not having some mindless cookie-cutter shape that you can stamp onto any topic that says "him is professional, him notable". Pyrop e 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to mention a few more things about WP:NMOTORSPORT as I primarily wrote it. I realize it's a very imperfect guideline and if I were to be writing it again now, I'd probably write it a little differently. It is hard to apply even currently. For example there are a number of series such as the F2000 Championship Series or SCCA MX-5 Cup or various countries' Porsche Carrera Cup competitions that are considered "pro racing" by their sanctioning bodies and they do give out prize money. However, most people would consider them Semi-Pro. The guideline has trouble distinguising Semi-Pro series from fully professional series and there's no good way to do it. There's the added problem of when series change statuses. For example, few would argue that the Trans-Am Series was not fully professional in the early 1970's and most of the 1980's, yet few would argue that it IS today. Conversely, the Pro Mazda Championship was decidedly a semi-pro series until the mid 2000's when it became an important feeder series and many would argue that it is a fully professional series today. Additionally, WP:NSPORT has guidelines for "the highest level of competition in their country". This is an issue for motorsport because there is very little organized motorsport in many countries. For example, I'm not aware of any organized motorsport in Moldova. If a group of guys started racing their Dacia Logans around a parking lot in Chisinau and called themselves the "Moldovan Touring Car Championship" and began giving a $100 prize to the winner does that automatically make them all notable? Logic would say not, but the guideline would say yes. I tried the write the original proposal to be as simple and inclusive as possible. I put it out for feedback and got none, so it was approved largely as written. Ideally, I think something like WP:NFOOTY adapted for motorsport would be great. However, any "tier" system we were to create would be completely contrived by us as there is no universal standard for comparing the importance of various racing series to one another. As such, it would likely be heavily biased towards the series that the top WP:MOTOR editors are interested in and would probably not get a lot of buy-in among the greater editing community. That being said 95%+ of the time WP:NMOTORSPORT works as written and exceptions can and are dealt with reasonably and if some editor games the system by saying some racer meets WP:NMOTORSPORT by claiming some series is professional that probably isn't, it's not the end of the world, at least we can make sure the article in question is properly written. -Drdisque (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

NFOOTY is indeed the basis for my "fully professional series"-type list idea. Our coverage is already heavily skewed towards things our members are interested in; very few BTCC drivers or F1 drivers of recent times (if any) haven't gotten articles, but there are massive holes in our sports car and WRC coverage, just as examples; this includes cars and teams as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started drawing up a list at User:Lukeno94/Major motorsport series list‎, which is based mostly on common precedent of what pertains to a notability-generating series. No individual races on here yet, or very few. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Took a look over, I think some of the lower Formulas probably shouldn't be on there, but I've added a few that were likely missed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's based on consensus I've seen at AfD, and such places. Certainly, if it gives you the chance to gain a superlicense, then it's a notable series. At AfD and elsewhere, Formula Three levels have generally been held to be enough, or at least borderline enough for the state of the article and such things to perhaps swing people. I've not included any of the minor national F3s, but I did include those that are from the nations known for a slightly bigger racing scene. I've gone and added some sports car series and touring car series, the latter being my strongest interest. I'll wander on to do more of the rallying series, plus some of the missing things (drag racing, drifting, rallycross, etc) soon. :) I'm glad people are contributing to this! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage is more or less required to determine that an article is notable. But not viceversa.

I think that not every Formula One driver is notable, or Indianapolis 500, much less the 24 Hours of Le Mans. As I said, I think that drivers with poor results in those events should not be considered relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get anywhere with trying to implement Formula One or Indy 500 viewpoint :) Again, what defines a "poor result"? For some people, just finishing an event generates good coverage (rookies and people out of left field), crashing out, a "heartbreaking" retirement close to the end of an event, or even setting some quick times before fading away/retiring. In other cases, anything other than a win is a poor result. You could levy in "points scoring", except that still doesn't help with some series that either give out points just for finishing, or the fact that finishing 12th for a Caterham in F1 is a notable feat. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A person who appears in a Major League Baseball game for one pitch (not even one inning) is considered notable. A person who appears in a National Football League game for one snap is considered notable. A person who plays in association football at the professional level is considered notable even if their career game time is measured in seconds. And accordingly, a racing driver who has competed in a fully-professional series is considered notable, even if they start and parked. Wikipedia does not make value judgements about what is or isn't "relevant" when it comes to sports results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to dig this up again but I was on vacation, so I missed the end of this. To relate to the last point made, people in stick and ball professional sports are fully paid by their teams. Racing drivers are not. It is not an apt comparison to say that just because it is viewed as a professional series does not mean that all of the participants are on the same level as professional athletes. Everyone in a professional sport is there on merit, you cannot say the same for those that have participated on Le Mans and various other "professional" series. I could easily ask if everyone who participates in the 24 Hours of Daytona is notable? Certainly far more red links there than at Le Mans, yet it is still a famous race in a professional series. Again, there is very little in the way of requirements in order to participate in this race. Are the rent-a-rides notable simply because they participated? Professional atheletes are notable because they have reached a high echelon of sports through a long career, not because they simply bought a seat in one event.

A better comparison than stick and ball professional athletes is this: An Academy Award-winning motion picture. Are all the extras who participated in the film notable simply because they were some small part in a famous film? The³5₉ (Talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

people in stick and ball professional sports are fully paid by their teams. Racing drivers are not. - Actually, in the vast majority of cases, they are. And comparing it to a film is wholly irrelevant, as a film is not a sporting event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You think the vast majority of drivers at Le Mans are paid by their teams? The³5₉ (Talk) 01:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what you said; you said "racing drivers are not". Both the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the 24 Hours of Daytona are equivilant to top-level tennis or golf tournaments; it's entirely possible for an "amateur" to make the cut for them, and we don't consider them less notable for being, otherwise, "amateurs". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My point with the "are not" is that not all drivers who participate in top tier racing series, equivilant to MLB, NFL, NBA, FA, etc, are professionals. And tournaments with cuts still have requirements based on scores and skill, while participation in many series do not. Professional stick and ball sports are not a pro-am operation. Most motorsport is. We can't simply use the same criteria as other sports for notability. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't whether those drivers should have articles. When they do, we'll take care of them. What I want to know is how are all of the currently existing articles improved by having a bunch of red links instead of just text. Pc13 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The presence of redlinks can draw the attention of those interested and stimulate them to write articles that they feel should exist. Britmax (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This. The fact that the Zytek Z11SN was redlinked, and had won its class in the 24LM and the ELMS, are two reasons why I wrote that article (which I probably should update soon). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head though, by your claim that it has won its class in the ELMS and Le Mans. That establishes notability. Simply existing does not. The point of redlinking is for pages that should exist, not to red link everything. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is just one immediate example. I've used redlinks in various subject locations to go ahead and write articles (also, what's up with the weasel statement "your claim"?). Simply existing doesn't, but competing in races does - and things don't get put on season entrylists/points charts/race results here unless they've actually competed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, simply taking part does not establish notability. Getting noticed does. Usually by winning or being near it. If not, for being innovative in a certain area. Which is not the case with the majority of the Debora articles that you wrote. You only established notability on the LMP296, and that's for winning the SR2 class in the 1998 ISRS season, not for taking part in Le Mans. Pc13 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is long-established WP:CONSENSUS that "simply taking part" does establish notability when it comes to competing at the top level of a sport. Which the events under question here in fact, and indisputiably, are. As for whether or not redlinks should be included, WP:REDLINK may be relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the claim that Le Mans is the top tier of sports car racing to be indisputable. The most famous event does not make it the highest tier. As stated, the numerous classes encourage different levels of drivers, teams, manufacturers, and commitment. LMP1, Group C, the sports prototypes, those are top tier, yes, but the lower categories are exactly that, lower tiers. How can LMGTE Amateur be considered the top tier of sports car racing? Or the LMP2 class that requires a silver or bronze rated driver to participate? You admit yourself that the criteria on WP:N is not really perfect, so how can there be consensus for this? The³5₉ (Talk) 04:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, WP:N isn't perfect - it's too restrictive. "How can there be consensus for this?" - Er, by there being agreement that there is no sports car racing event, anywhere, and regardless of class, that is at a higher level of competition than the 24 Hours of Le Mans? Arguing that a driver who competes in the event is an "amateur" and is therefore not notable is like arguing that if a player who is otherwise an "amateur" plays in The Masters, unless he wins he isn't notable despite having played at the highest level of the sport. "Highest level" is not the class, it is the series/event. Saying "X class competed in the 24 Hours of Le Mans but isn't notable because ____" is a value judgement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability should be of some help. If a driver can be established as having done something notable and can be referenced then that dotted line is passed. We just need to recognise that a reference that lists a driver in a results table and is not mentioned anywhere else does not constitute notability.

How about this for simplicity, if the driver is mentioned in a sentence, good! In a table, not good enough.

How does that sound as a rule of thumb? --Falcadore (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I spoke to someone a while ago off-Wiki, someone who isn't a Wikipedian, about their thoughts on the notability of Le Mans 24 Hour drivers. You know what he said? "I am a motorsport fan, yes, but I simply cannot see why competing in Le Mans 24 hours wouldn't be notable? it's one of THE major motorsport events in existence!" - a direct quote from someone who is highly interested in motorsport, but not so much a Wikipedian. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Lukeno94 if we can't even be sure if a drivers name is correct, then they can't be that notable ;).

Notability should be establishable with a reference yes? --Falcadore (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course; unlike WP:N, WP:V is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm restricted to online-only sources, since I don't have the access to libraries full of motor racing literature (more's the pity), but the one article I went through and checked the racing histories of, 1923 24 Hours of Le Mans, is completely unreferenced, so who knows where the names got pulled from. As I don't have access to that literature, I can't try and make some kind of definitive judgement, hence why I state that the articles fail GNG online, but may pass it offline! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, as I pointed out before, participants in the Masters still have to earn their way in to play based on previous performance. The Masters requires invitations. And so does Le Mans, for that matter, but only to teams, so the argument could be made that all Le Mans teams are notable. However it's impossible to apply a stick and ball sport criteria to motorsport where anyone with money can be a participant. I'd also argue that the various World and International Championships are the pinnacle of sports car racing, with Le Mans being the equivilant of the Monaco GP to F1's World Championship. And yes, Le Mans has been part of the World Championship, but not all participants have been entrants in the championship, they are simply making a one-off at Le Mans.

As for a requirement that something notable can be said about a driver, that is pretty much what I've agreed with. They must have done something worth mentioning besides simply participated, even if it's not even a mention based on performance. Firsts, record holders, anything, that's fine. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"However it's impossible to apply a stick and ball sport criteria to motorsport where anyone with money can be a participant." Why? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What professional sport has players in the top tier leagues who bought a place on their team? All of them have earned their way in through the ladder and are hired for their skill. Even the guys on the bench still have to pass standards from their respective teams to be hired. It's the very definition of professional sports, someone who makes a career out of playing a sport. Who on a professional sports team would still qualify as an amateur? And yes, things like the Olympics are full of amateurs, but again, they still require qualifications of skill in order to participate. Motorsport is an entirely different scheme from this. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia. It is not a completist work. Achievement should come ahead of participation. Someone who is a champion at a lower level should come ahead of someone who has just appeared at a higher level. --Falcadore (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

...and someone who has won a championship will almost certainly pass GNG. We're back here again. Constructing lists of races or series that are assumed to act as an indicator of notability for their participants might be a useful aid for editors, but only if evidence can be shown that participation in those series or races does indeed render people notable or that only already notable people participate in them. Too much of what has been discussed above relies on editors promoting particular events because they "reckon", "feel" or "think" that participation in a series makes someone notable. That isn't good enough. "Notability is not inherited" is a long-standing principle of Wikipedia. Is Le Mans a notable race? Yes, it certainly passes GNG. Do notable people take part in the Le Mans race? Absolutely, there are very many drivers who have driven at Le Mans who also pass GNG. Are all drivers who have ever driven at Le Mans, or even a majority of those drivers, notable people? No, they aren't. Numbers are given above but around 50% of people who have competed fail to come even close to passing GNG. Therefore, Le Mans participation is not a reliable indicator of notability. It is that simple. I know that other sports WikiProjects have simplistic and (frankly) difficult-to-justify specialist notability criteria based on participation alone, but why does that mean we need them? There are orders of magnitude fewer motor racing drivers than even international-level soccer players, let alone professional club players, and perhaps fans of Kevball need all the help they can get, but why use arguments for that sport here? If you are really desperate perhaps a (very) limited list of events and series could be compiled that have been shown to be good indicators of notability for their participants. However, basing a list of such solely on whether a limited group of editors have some nebulous idea about the series' notability isn't a good way of going about this. This whole debate is getting quite silly, and I have yet to see any good arguments put forward as to why we shouldn't just use the GNG gold standard. If that were the case all spurious distinctions between professionals and amateurs fall away and people are judged purely on their own merits. Pyrop e 22:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Because, being blunt, having to have absolutely everything pass GNG is stupid, and would leave us with a very empty WikiProject. GNG is the gold standard, but gold is not the only medal out there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Olympic bronze medallists don't have articles. Wikipedia doesn't cover all the medals. --Falcadore (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It would absolutely not. If you can't pass GNG then you are going to have a very hard time meeting WP:V, and that is a must. If all you can say about someone on their page is "this person is a person and they race cars" then what are you adding to Wikipedia that wouldn't be taken care of in a simple race results table? That isn't making a full Wikiproject, it is cluttering the encyclopaedia with uninformative cruft. Don't confuse quantity with quality. Pyrop e 22:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what? You can easily meet WP:V without passing GNG, and to suggest otherwise is utterly baffling. I'll use a football example; Soccerbase is a statistics database, and a reliable one; any article sourced entirely around that website would easily meet WP:V, and yet still fail GNG if there were no sites covering anything other than stats. Your comment is nonsensical. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And it should be pointed out that Le Mans isn't the pinnacle of its sport. Because of its history, it's nature, it's competitors, it's teams; it operates very much, if indrectly, within the sphere of Formula One. Le Mans greatest names feature a bunch of drivers who tried F1 but couldn't make it to the top, Bell, Ickx, Schuppan, Pirro, McNish, Dalmas, Pescarolo, Gendebien and so on. Yes Le Mans cars or not Formula One cars, but F3000, F2, GP2 etc aren't Formula One cars either. Almost every Le Mans driver would trade for Formula One career or victories. --Falcadore (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And that comment is nonsensical as well. That's like saying every NASCAR driver wanted to win the IRL/CART/ChampCar or whatever - they're completely different disciplines, and your comment about them all wanting to trade their results for F1 results is just baffling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So by consulting Soccerbase you get what? Name, rank and number. Fabulous, what a thrilling article that will make. Wikipedia is not a stats site, and if all you have are basic stats from a stats site then you article is quite likely to fail AFD. What have you gained? Cruft, again with the cruft. And again, if Soccerbase is the one and only source for a person, they simply aren't notable. I know some sports like to pretend otherwise, and that every person who ever tapped a leathern sphere on a grass rectangle in front of a paying crowd is deserving of note, but their arguments are undermined by the inconvenient fact that there isn't any supporting evidence for that. As are yours in this case. If someone is notable they will pass GNG. If they don't pass GNG they aren't notable. It is very very simple. Pyrop e 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. You are, I suspect deliberately, taking just one component out of the whole section of what I typed out of context and blowing it up. The connection between NASCAR and Indy Car is not even remotely comparable. THAT is a nonsensical statement. It also demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the history of sports car racing.

Sports car racing evolved directly from Grand Prix racing and ran in parrellel for several decades. Indy car and NASCARs evolution was completely seperate. I'll go into more detail if you like. --Falcadore (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pyrope: You've confused WP:N, and WP:V. I did not say that the article would survive an AfD necessarily (unless it met NFOOTBALL in a reasonable manner), or that it would make someone notable. What I said is that the article would easily pass WP:V. Which it would.
@Falcadore: Sports car racing may have evolved with it, yes, but there is simply no way you can make that sweeping generalization, because it is just ridiculous. F1 is not the be-all and end-all, and not everyone wants to go there, despite what you appear to think. Le Mans is the pinnacle of its sport, which is sports car racing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly. While those other "F" series "aren't Formula One cars", they are Formula cars. Formula cars, IndyCars, sports cars, stock cars, and drag racing cars are all in entirely and radically different "trees" of the sport; saying that sports cars equate to formula cars as was implied above is directly and precisely equivilant to saying that since Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League involve hitting a (roughly) round object with a stick, then the NHL isn't the pinnacle of its sport because it operates in the sphere of baseball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't. If you think they aren't linked then you need to look harder at your editing practices. Creating articles that have no hope of progressing beyond simple stats stubs isn't helpful, and I've already given you my opinion of NFOOTBALL and its ilk. That's just a tired old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but applied to guidelines rather than mainspace pages. Just because one Wikiproject uses loose definitions of notability doesn't mean we need to. Even NFOOTBALL only states that professional players other than full internationals are "generally" considered notable. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. And as I said above, there are literally hundreds of professional soccer players for every top level motor racing driver, so the need to establish idiot-proof notability short-cut criteria in this Wikiproject just doesn't exist. There are enough editors and few enough subjects that each can be dealt with on an individual basis. There's a business acronym that's applicable here: K.I.S.S. I think it applies. Pyrop e 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I said nothing about the person being genuinely notable, did I? I said that it would pass WP:V, and it would indeed. It would also pass WP:V if I used routine match reports to build an article, and yet would still fail WP:GNG. I believe it is you that needs to re-read what they are actually linking to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You most certainly did not say anything about a person being notable. That much has been true for much of this discussion. If you wish to use a source to establish notability then that source should also conform to verifiability standards, but you are right to say that merely adhering to WP:V doesn't establish notability. However, it still would be hard for you to put together a meaningfully informative article without sources that satisfy GNG. Remember that "critical analysis" thing we talked about a while back? Sites such as Soccerbase certainly do not provide that, and nor do routine reports. If the only place a person has appeared is in such places, then why would you assume them to be notable? Nobody has taken notice of them, after all, and that is the crux of this matter. Your article becomes "X is a person who races cars. They raced them here. And they raced them here. And they raced them here..." Which is basically just a results table written out longhand. What are you hoping to bring to Wikipedia by arguing so hard in favour of non-notable people? Pyrop e 23:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that you are just anti-project guidelines in general. You can achieve some fairly noteworthy results and yet either fail GNG, or not meet it in online sources (which are all most people have access to, myself included). I have no objection whatsoever to shifting the guideline to be something results based, or even to finishing a race, but to scrap the guideline altogether is flat-out stupid, and would indeed leave us with a big hole and a lot of articles to delete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that the standard is just fine as it is; Wikipedia is not paper, and we need to remember Wikipedia wasfounded to be "the sum total of human knowledge", not "the sum total of knowledge that has to hit a moving and increasingly-hard-to-meet notability target". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problems with establishing guideline criteria that are evidence-based. Too often though, and certainly in this instance, the arguments put forward for one series or another are simply supported by what some editor likes or thinks or feels or reckons or supposes, or however they like to dress up their personal prejudices as pseudo fact. You are basically arguing that people are notable even though nobody has ever taken enough notice of them to actually bother writing about them. That's a very odd position to take. I have yet to see a person who has achieved a truly noteworthy result who hasn't had some form of coverage in a non-routine manner. That's what noteworthy and notable mean: they are worthy of wider notice. Your earlier exemplar of Alister McRae was a good example of how much material is out there for notable people. The reason I fall back on GNG is because, far from it being a moving target, I have yet to see any evidence that it isn't a simple, straightforward and stable group of criteria, that don't rely on personal feelings and subjective value judgements about an individual or their race series's worth. Pyrop e 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The question once more though; what is a noteworthy result? If I entered the 24 Hours of Le Mans as a nobody, and came 20th, that may well be very noteworthy. If, say, the son of a famous racing driver did, it may not be. And the argument of "nobody has ever written an article or such on them, therefore they cannot be notable" just doesn't work. Some people are known as "unsung heroes" for that very reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You know how you work out what is and isn't a noteworthy result? By seeing whether anyone in wider society has taken note of it. That is precisely how it works. Finishing 20th at Le Mans as an amateur might well be considered notable by some, but wider society will ignore them until they get written about, or interviewed on the TV, or coverage in other media. If someone is "unsung" that is almost the dictionary definition of non-notable. Just because you reckon someone's achievements are interesting doesn't make them notable. That's only your opinion, and to produce an article on the back of that is verging on OR. Pyrop e 17:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

MLB & NHL? That's no better than the NASCAR/Indy Car comparison. No. Olympic Field Hockey and Ice Hockey perhaps. Test Match Cricket and One Day International Cricket is much closer.

Sports car racing was the original subdivision of motor racing way back a century ago. Grand Prix Racing continued its journey towards Formula One. Sports Car racing split was the equivalent of the the creation of touring car racing post war, then the Production car racing in the 80s/90s. It was a back to road car movement as Grand Prix racing became increasingly specialised. Sports car racing continued to evolve alongside Grand Prix racing, a lot of the same drivers and teams competed in both. Technical developments travelled back and forth. The same engines were widely used in both. Teams and manufacturers would transition from one to the other with budget. This would continue all the way deep into the 60s, and sporadically much beyond. Sauber and Mercedes Benz for example arrived in F1 from Sports Car racing and Sauber's sports car drivers would take up a lot of space in Formula One throughout the 1990s. Half of the professional components of the 1980s World Sports Car Championship moved to F1. Sauber, Mercedes, Peugeot, TWR, Honda, Toyota, Jaguar if you want to push the example further in time. At the same time however there was not the same transition level from Sports Cars to GT racing even though they were competing in the same races. They do not have the same level of technology. GTs are modified road cars. Sports cars are specialised racing cars, essentially two-seat openwheeler with enclosed wheels.

You make it sound like Sports Car racing and Formula One are completely seperate sports. They are not. They are both aspect of bitumen circuit racing. Think of F1 as Test cricket, Sports cars as ODI cricket and Touring cars as Twenty/20 Cricket. --Falcadore (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that a Daytona Prototype car and a Formula One car are substantially similar beyond having four wheels and one driver is perplexing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DPs don't race in Europe. Not perplexing at all.

You going to list each individual car one-by-one to make a point? --Falcadore (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sports car racing and Formula One are not completely separate sports, but they are most definitely not two sides of the same coin, and nor does a "F1 is the only notable thing in terms of tarmac racing"-type suggestion that you made make any sense. However much crossover there is does not make any difference. And it would be as ridiculous to say that all OD or 20/20-only cricketers wanted to play test cricket, as it is to say that all 24LM drivers want to compete in F1. Now that is categorically WP:OR territory, and obvious bollocks. Going back to the "unsung heroes" part; just because someone didn't receive a lot of news coverage or whatever, doesn't make them non-notable, or their achievements not worthy of note, it just means that they haven't fitted into a generally fairly narrow-minded media viewpoint. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And yet, when interviewed on exactly that question, most of them DO say their ambition is to play Test Cricket. Once again you are betrayed by your lack of knowledge. Not OR in the slightest, its just a comparison.

Going back to the "unsung heroes" part; just because someone didn't receive a lot of news coverage or whatever, doesn't make them non-notable, or their achievements not worthy of note.

And yet in reply to this assertion, Wikipedia disagrees with you. I refer you to WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. --Falcadore (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I should say I'm concerned by the WP:OWNERSHIP tendancies of a phrase like fairly narrow-minded media viewpoint. --Falcadore (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How the hell does ownership come into this whatsoever? Why are you constantly pulling things out of your ass like that? NPF doesn't support your case, nor does BLP1E (BLP1E being particularly irrelevant) - not sure why you decided to randomly reference them here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? So Le Mans drivers whose claim to fame is an appearance only in results spreadsheets is not People who are relatively unknown or Subjects notable only for one event? You really think that does not apply? Well lets see what other opinions in the group say as to whether I am being 'random' or not. Seeing as we are talking about drivers, who are people then outside of WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should be the first stop on the subject. --Falcadore (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No on the BLP1E comment, since I wasn't particularly talking about people who had only competed in one event, and someone competing in a televised race is a public figure, even if they only appear on screen briefly. And that's something a lot of people leave out of the GNG equation; people who receive coverage within races. Beyond that, WP:V is a red herring being presented as though it is a problem; if a reliable statistics resource is available, then it really isn't a problem. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, 'notability' isn't a merit badge for achievement, it is a status held by a topic because of society's interest in it. It is not achieved simply by having performed at a level that you or anybody else thinks is impressive, it is conferred by the simple expedient of society having demonstrably taken notice. It is not inherited from any associated topic, but nor is it lost through the mere passage of time; if society once noticed someone or something, it is 'notable' on Wikipedia now. In Wikipedia's context, 'society' having taken notice is reflected in the existence of multiple, significant, reliable, third-party sources, as stated in GNG. (A fleeting glimpse of a driver in a televised race, with no discussion or analysis by the race commentators, fails the 'significant' portion, so your comment above that all competitors in a televised race are thus able to pass GNG is simply wrong.) Any specific topic guideline should build on GNG and help to clarify it in the context of that topic's own nuances and culture, not seek to subvert it or bypass it by inventing subjective free-pass criteria based on what some editors "reckon". This is exemplified by your own arguments here; you state that a 20th place finish for an amateur would be notable, but what about a 21st place finish, or 22nd? And what happens if the race is a very high attrition year and only 20 cars actually make it through the full 24 hours. Is 20th so notable then? These are all subjective value judgements based on your own likes and dislikes, they are not criteria that can be applied across the board to all subtopics within motorsport. If, as a service and a help to editors, you would like to define some criteria that will help editors work out whether someone is notable within a motorsport context then please go ahead, but your criteria should be backed by evidence that the simplifications and generalisations you are making as part of those criteria are based in fact, not your own personal preferences. Pyrop e 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, when will people like you, Pyrope, stop completely and utterly manipulating what I say, and try to make it seem like I said something totally different? 20 was an arbitrary number, and I was in no way attributing any kind of significance to it whatsoever. I used that to say that a results-based criteria is simply not going to work. And nor did I say everyone who appeared on television is notable; I said that appearing on TV, even fleetingly, makes them a public person - which is true. And that a good interview on-air, or a pre-race piece that goes in-depth into a driver, could and should be considered in the GNG equation. Honestly, are you reading anything here, or just making up a load of rubbish on the spot? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Now now, no need for that. I'm not manipulating what you say, merely looking at it closely. Appearing on TV does not make someone a public person. That very much depends on the context, otherwise each and every runner in the London Marathon (or any major city marathon, come to that) would for ever more be considered a public person. That's clearly bonkers. An on-air interview or other coverage as you suggest might go toward the GNG criteria, but that's not what you said initially to Falcadore, so please don't lecture others about twisting meanings and changing your position. Your comment was ... someone competing in a televised race is a public figure, even if they only appear on screen briefly. And that's something a lot of people leave out of the GNG equation; people who receive coverage within races. That you ran one sentence on from the previous one ("and") very strongly implies that you are claiming that people who appear in fleeting shots are receiving coverage suitable for consideration with respect to GNG. As for the results-based opinions, your initial comment that I was building upon was "If I entered the 24 Hours of Le Mans as a nobody, and came 20th, that may well be very noteworthy.^[1] I don't think I used that at all unfairly. I entirely left out the son-of-a-famous-driver angle and looked only at an unknown amateur. From that point of view my comment basically boiled down to "where do you draw the line', and as you can see that is a wholly subjective and pointless exercise. As you say, a results-based criterion is unworkable. However, you have completely failed to suggest another criterion that might be useful other than putting up an unsupported and subjective list of races and race series that you consider to be important enough to transfer notability on to their participants. As I and others have shown, this just isn't justifiable and flies directly in the face of the Wikipedia concept that notability can't be inherited. Pyrop e 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You were categorically manipulating what I said in your previous post, because, quite frankly, it was a bunch of lies. I have not "changed my position", merely made it more obvious to those deliberately trying to manipulate my every word by clarifying one thing that was already suggested beforehand. Not really sure why I should bother replying to the rest of your comment, since you're still trying to manipulate my wording to suit your viewpoint, and since what you're trying to force upon everyone is against a fairly general Wikipedia consensus (ie, that notability guidelines that don't rely on GNG should be scrapped). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which bits were lies? In one post you strongly hinted that appearing in any form in a televised race meant you were notable, then in a follow up post you claim only to have meant that being interviewed or otherwise covered in a significant way in a race broadcast made you notable. That's not clarification, that's contradiction. In another post you claimed that finishing 20th as an amateur might make you notable, then later you claim that you meant no such thing. Again, that's contradiction, not clarity. Repeatedly misrepresenting my position doesn't help your case either. I have said, quite a few times, that if you can show why participation in a race or race series is a good indicator that a person is notable then by all means write a guideline around that. You have repeatedly failed to come up with anything more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAP arguments, and that's pretty shoddy logical base to start from. Pyrop e 22:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's make them clear then. "you state that a 20th place finish for an amateur would be notable" - no, I didn't. I said that it might make you noteworthy, not that it would be notable - and that's not a minor semantics change, that's you deliberately manipulating my comment. "In one post you strongly hinted that appearing in any form in a televised race meant you were notable" - nope, I said that people neglect the television coverage within races aspect when it comes to GNG. Kindly stop manipulating my comments into things they are categorically not. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAP is your attempt to cover up the fact that your stance is simply against Wikipedia consensus as a whole, where subject guidelines are supposed to add to GNG, not demand that it is the only standard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That "might" is certainly in my last comment, and the whole quotation including both "might" and "noteworthy" is in the one before it. I don't think anyone else involved in this discussion has discounted significant coverage in a television broadcast as being a possible GNG support, where was that said? What I showed was that by using the word "and" to link your sentences you strongly implied that a fleeting glimpse counted as significant. At no point did I discount significant TV coverage, just your definition of "significant". Topic guidelines should indeed add to GNG, but they shouldn't act as a shortcut or a way of circumventing it. That much is stated at WP:WHYN: "[notability criteria] apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria." There is no exclusion at WHYN for topic-specific criteria. Just to give you an example or two of what I'm talking about, how about looking at a hypothetical case? Let's take 'people who won Le Mans', to stay on-theme with this topic. Now, it is fairly easy to establish that pretty much all recent winners of Le Mans have sufficient coverage in magazines, newspapers, books, websites, television broadcasts, radio programs, and other media sources to demonstrate their notability. The coverage doesn't have to be readily available, or even in English, but it is there, certainly since the early 1960s and (I'm guessing, because my Motor Sport hardcopy magazine archive prior to this date is patchy) likely before that. Now consider Driver X, a winner from the 1930s who, for whatever reason, doesn't have an article yet (this is a hypothetical case study, not reality!) and for whom no suitable sources can be found by a simple Google search. Therefore, you can't take the easy route to 'notability' by passing GNG straight away. What do we do with them? Well, based on the precedent set by a significant majority of other people who meet the 'won Le Mans' criterion, we would assume that the sources are probably out there in a format we can't easily access (old copies of periodicals such as The Motor and Autocar are much more difficult to access, books not indexed at Google Books, etc.) or that at some point soon a writer in a current magazine might decide to do a profile piece on them (and may well raid their own archive or that of the British Library to do so). Writers such as Doug Nye and Gordon Cruickshank in Motor Sport are doing this sort of thing all the time, and Autosport has its retrospective section each week, after all. In this case, based on the precedent demonstrated for other 'people who won Le Mans' we can assume that Driver X is a notable person, it is just that we can't find the sources at the moment that would back this up. Happily there is a very good example of this from the 1960s in Ed Hugus, winner in 1965 and missing from our page list. He has been redlinked on the assumption that he is notable based on his Le Mans win and, surprise surprise, a very simple Google search turns up plenty of sources. The same sort of reasoning but applied to participants in a race series might apply to a rookie driver who has been unexpectedly promoted from an F3 drive to an F1 race seat. Not that unusual, but not an everyday occurrence. Depending on their status within F3 they may or may not have achieved GNG-supported notability at that level, but the mere fact that they are now driving for an F1 team will almost certainly guarantee that within a very short space of time there will be plentiful sources available, so starting a stub article now might be a good idea. These sorts of circumstances are where topic notability criteria are useful, but they have to be justified based on real notability, not some arbitrary and ill-defined list of races and the like that a small group of editors get excited about. Merely having seen up Jacky Ickx's tailpipes on the Mulsanne doesn't make a driver notable. Pyrop e 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You can't try and cover up the lies you were making, by referencing your comments after I called you out on them. Nor did I say anyone discounted television coverage, but that people neglect it (meaning they don't necessarily think of it) - nice misrepresentation yet again. Are you simply incapable of not altering my comments to twist them out of shape? This "arbitrary and ill-defined list" is intended to be a rough draft for people to discuss, not to completely bitch about for no apparent reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You two can keep going back and forth on who said what when if you like, but it is straying from the point. So I am going to suggest a... --Falcadore (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Circuit breaker

Any new driver biography is going to have to A) pass GNG and B) not be in violation of BLP. Just as a starting point.

Luke: you've said you lack printed references, so I take it, that it is unlikely you will be going through and creating a huge back catalogue of drivers that have started Le Mans races, am I right in thinking that?

Also, going by the ongoing debate here, nobody much else has any real appetite to be doing the same, yes?

Then as a purely practical measure, adding in a huge swathe of redlinks that nobody amongst the group of regular motorsort editors is doing anything about reducing is a largely pointless activity?

The purpose of redlinks is to encourage the creation of driver articles, but if that is NOT happening then we can assume it is an activity without any real benefit in the short, or even medium turn.

So may I suggest then as then only thing being achieved is changing the colour of the text that perhaps we back-off from creating all these redlinks, until such a time that some DOES start creating a bunch of sports car racing driver articles, and assist anyone who does with the back linking to other articles?

How does that sound as a compromise? Feel free to call me some names, but I'm just trying to bring about a solution. We don't see to be achieving much in the way of solutions, as the 2014 driver order argument is demonstrating. This is an attempt at a logical outcome.

So, comments? --Falcadore (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is fine, but you cannot unilaterally decide to scrap NMOTORSPORT on your own, as that is clearly not within the consensus here (perhaps two people would agree with it going, everyone else wants it reworking), so demanding everything meets GNG is not something you can do. As it has clearly escaped the notice of everyone who is desperate to discredit me, I have stopped adding links to anything other than the articles I have created, since I'm sick to death of this farce, of people who have nothing better to do than moan about actions that fit within policy and NMOTORSPORT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
While this is hardly a deletion discussion, I would point out WP:NOEFFORT in response to "[it being] a largely pointless activity" (and without too much of a stretch, WP:CRYSTAL). We don't remove or avoid red links just because "nobody's turning them blue", and suggesting that we do so here, speaking frankly, seems like an attempt not at a 'logical outcome', but rather simply to achieve the originally-desired-but-failed-to-get-WP:CONSENSUS result even though others don't want it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, not a demand (sheesh). I also suggested to back off, NOT to take further action deleting or creating redlinks. I was not after scrapping NMOTORSPORT, I was a suggested starting point.

If you want to defend your right to create redlinks for no obvious reason out of some sense of personal rights liberation then there is nothing anyone can do because the argument becomes instaantly circular and there is no solution.

I did not involve myself in early parts of the discussion so I refute any suggestion of trying o force an outcome.

If you want to continue arguing back and forth on virtually the same points then you can do so because everyone else will loose interest.

So if you actually want to go any further then I strongly suggest you cease the back and forth and head directly to Dispute Resolution. Seek third opinions or an RFC or DRN.

I now feel sorry for even trying. So go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you are actively uninterested in achieving a compromise. I does not have to be mine, just stop the back and forth. --Falcadore (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Falcadore, what part of "I have stopped adding links to anything other than the articles I have created" did you not understand? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asking you to sort out your differences. Anything else is window dressing. Go to DR, I'm no longer interested in debating the topic. Call me what you like. --Falcadore (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

^ You, above.

[1] You, above.

[1]