Talk:Jansen Van Vuuren

Certainly this article should not be deleted. This young man's gruesome death is a reminder that Formula 1 is a dangerous sport, and speaks to issues of safety and whether enough was or is being done to make the sport safe using all available precautionary measures. I have read many articles on Wikipedia which address much more obscure and so-called "non-notable" people. Also, as is pointed out in the Wiki link on notability, it harms no-one that his entry remains, but if it were deleted I for one would feel that Wikipedia was "whitewashing" Formula 1's safety record. User:Jaganath 16:18 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please then back up this article (WP:CITE) using reliable sources (WP:RS). Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard. I'm not even going to address the claim that Wikipedia has some conspiracy to "whitewash Formula 1's safety record" and just assume you feel sorry for the guy. He's not notable, worthless and meaningless in the grand (or even minorest) scheme of history, and shouldn't be an article. Delete. 24.126.199.129 09:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• He's not notable, worthless and meaningless I would really like to see you say that in front of this guy's family. Also, I am not going to debate this with some anonymous IP address, get yourself registered or recuse yourself from editing this article. By the way, "minorest" is not a word. There are literally thousands of Wikipedia articles which deal with more obscure personages, why don't you go spout your verbiage on those pages instead. I never claimed that there is a "conspiracy" by Wikipedia to gloss over F1's saftey record, but this gruesome event is most certainly a part of that record; there is no more reason to delete this article than there is to delete any mention of Ayrton Senna's death.User:Jaganath 11:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note the "Dark Side of Motorsport" external link I have provided describes this as "one of the worst accidents in motor racing history", which I think establishes its notability beyond any shadow of a doubt. So the "Delete" tag will now be removed. User:Jaganath 12:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit that probably will be to be added in

Sorry, I was going to add this part in but I would like your opinion on it because I fear it maybe considered vandalism and/or POV...

A lot of debates have been made about the so called "Stupidity" of the marshall. However, these can be argued that the marshall was doing his job and some of these comments are usually made by people who are ignorant to Formula One and how enthusiastic young F1 marshalls are when it comes to F1 cars

I know it seems like a horrible POV, but that's why I didn't put it in...plus I feel so strongly against these people's opinions as they seem both ignorant to what is mentioned above and to me, the comment feel like they wear made in like...one second...that's what really boiled my blood --Skully Collins 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If these opinions are in reliable sources and you can cite them, then it's probably OK to add (preferably with the counter point, properly cited of course). WP:NPOV allows for 2 options - an article that's completely neutral, or one that provides balance - if there are 2 notable points of view on a topic, both should be given appropriate weight. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sort of aware of them...mainly because I accidently voiced my opinions on the "Adelaide 94" incident on the Damon Hill article. Although I did contribute the most towards making the article an FA...Citing a source for this could be hard as most of these opinions come from comments on YouTube's videos...and when I ciet sources from YouTube, I always cite from the video, not the comments made on the video :). --Skully Collins 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be best to leave it out then - I don't think YouTube videos count as reliable sources, unless perhaps the video is just a mirror of say a news broadcast (in which case the original broadcast should be the citation, I think)... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction that I think should be done

The article says "Van Vuuren's corpse was so torn apart by the impact that it was only recognized by exclusion after the race director gathered all of his colleagues" and in the article concerning Tom Pryce is said that "His body was split in half and dismembered".

For what I see in the video, he was not split at all, actually in the end of the video there are some frames where can be seen his corpse on a stretcher and it's intact, though covered in blood

Hmmm...if your referring to the positions: 1:42 & 1:50-2:10, then I'd say it was Pryce. For the following reasons:

• If we assumed that Van Vuuren was wearing the same as the first marshall that crossed the road, then the person on the strecher can't be Van Vuuren.
• Pryce's team, Shadow, colours were white, so Pryce must've been wearing white overalls, which is the same colour the guy on the strecher.
• Pryce's hair colour/style is the same as the person on the strecher.

However, I do agree with you, Van Vuuren was wearing some kinda red overalls wasn't he? So the redness around his body after the impact is certainly those overalls. --Skully Collins 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The person on the stretcher is Pryce. When his head collided with the fire extinguisher, he suffered an open fracture of the skull. His heart would still have been beating for a short while, which explains why his overalls are stained red - blood. Van Vuuren's body would have been so mangled (as is obvious if you've seen the impact he took) that even the producers of this documentary wouldn't have shown it. Lec CRP1 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

it was worse than being runned by a train, we can see the marhsall body desintegrate after lands on ground.

Breaking news: This article is STILL unbelievably pointless and should be deleted

He wasn't famous BEFORE he got mowed down, so why should he have a page now? YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE HIS BIRTH DATE!

Source: CNN 172.189.167.122

The very fact that he was "mowed down", as you disrespectfully put it, is exactly what makes Van Vuuren notable. Your reasoning is basically "he wasn't notable before he became notable", which can be said of every single person with a Wikipedia article. There are unfortunately many people whose birthdates are missing, see Category:Year of birth missing. That's no reason to delete an article. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)