List of all Formula One Grands Prix in order : Also an unnecessary content fork of the season articles.  T v x 1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  T v x 1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Essentially a content fork with no added independent value; there is nothing gained from this page compared to the season articles, which additionally include non-championship races.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (updated primary recommendation based on concerns that merge target may grow too large) or Merge to List of Formula One Grands Prix .  While this list meets the purpose criterion of WP:NLIST as an informational and navigational list and is also an acceptable WP:DIFFORK , I think a merge by WP:NOPAGE to page containing related lists probably makes sense.  — siro χ o 18:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The purpose criterion is not a trump card to a list.  Notability (or in this case lack thereof) cannot just be ignored.  Also this is way too large (and increasing endlessly) to be actually of navigational and informational use.  This is list also does not add any new information whatsoever to what already is present in other articles.  As for merging with the other list, that would only make it worse size-wise and would go against a consensus achieved there no to include such lists there .  T v x 1 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as failing WP:NLIST and being a WP:CFORK .  Listing GP this way has no value, indepedent of the season articles.06:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB ( talk • contribs ) I'm leaning weak keep .  I agree with Siroxo that this meets both WP:NLIST and is a totally acceptable WP:DIFFORK .  The page is, however, a bit unwieldy.  I'm not sure what content could be merged without ballooning the List of Formula One Grands Prix out of control. -- Cerebral726 ( talk ) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you actually substantiate that it meets WP:LISTN then?  Notability doesn't exist because you say so.  You need to prove it with acceptable sources.  T v x 1 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Specific examples: Smith, Roger (2019).  Formula 1 All The Races: The First 1000 .  Poundbury, England: Veloce Publishing .  ISBN 978-1-787115-66-8 .  The Formula One Record Book (2023): Grand Prix Results, Team & Driver Stats, All-Time Records THE DAILY TELEGRAPH COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FORMULA ONE by Bruce Jones Additionally to these, in a more general sense, the guidelines call for the subjects to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  Few things are discussed more in motorsports than the set of all time results of Formula One Grands Prix.  Everything is always discussed in the context of the results dating back to 1950, such as milestone in this list always specifically mentioned in the news: [46] [47] [48] Cerebral726 ( talk ) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The three weblinks you provided don't "[discuss all F1 races] as a group or set".  They talk about one event in isolation just because it happens to represent a milestone in the sport's history (500th, 900th and 1100th races).  That is not the same thing.  SSSB ( talk ) 21:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What’s your opinion on the 3 other sources I provided?  Cerebral726 ( talk ) 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That it is very hard to gauge the relevance of those books because I don't know  a) the accuracy of the claim of "complete encyclopedia" or  b) the depth of detail or  c) (linked to b and  a) if these books discuss them as a set or discuss them independently but all of them.  What I would say is that these are three WP:FANCRUFT books.  We shouldn't be keeping a list for WP:FANCRUFT reasons.  SSSB ( talk ) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would rather say those books fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and don’t establish notability.  Of course the basic results will be covered somewhere.  T v x 1 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on its usefulness as a navigation tool meeting WP:CLN/AOAL.  // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a valid argument per WP:USEFUL .  This has nothing to do with policies or guidelines, but is pure personal opinion.  The season articles are much more “useful” for this purpose.  T v x 1 21:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe Timothy was fairly clear that they are not saying the article is merely useful without any justification, as a personal opinion.  They cite WP:CNL and WP:AOAL as reasons why they are useful as a navigation tool and thus encyclopedic, which is an argument that further builds upon arguments already presented above.  Cerebral726 ( talk ) 21:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these trump WP:LISTN, which isn’t satisfied here.  T v x 1 19:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Also, I do not see how this fancruft article is going to be any use to anybody but the most obsessed F1 stans.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have something deleted from Wikipedia these days.  All the keep arguments have been refuted.  I honestly don't see why this keeps being relisted then.  Is it really that much to ask to just properly weigh the arguments instead of just counting the numbers?  Arguments are not valid just because they are made.  Consensus is not unanimity.  Meanwhile, this article keeps ballooning in size and there is nothing at all here that is not already conveyed to our readers in a much more valuable way anywhere else on Wikipedia.  This is nothing but unnecessary duplication for the sake of it.  T v x 1 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] People take in information in different ways, there are a lot of ways of thinking and learning.  Presenting the same information in multiple ways is generally good for accessibility.  Others may find more value in something like this than you do.  — siro χ o 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it just don’t buy that for this information.  Your just bringing this up as an excuse to justify keeping this for the sake of it.  There’s no way an article this large (and continualltly enlarging) is of true practical usage.  This isn’t even a different way of presenting this information.  It’s just copying it to a different place for the sake of it.  T v x 1 11:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please consider striking your accusation.  It's unfounded, unnecessary, and untrue.  — siro χ o 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per SpacedFarmer.  I don't disagree with the fact that this list is a fancruft and should be removed.  Accesscrawl ( talk ) 02:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete