Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep considering the consensus seems clear and there are unlikely any immediate "delete" comments coming soon (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  00:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough notability to justify having his wins as a dedicated stand alone list. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a F1 or Senna fan site. All his wins are already listed in his own article as well.Tvx1 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The list provides easy navigability of Senna's wins, which are not there listed separately in the main article. He is very notable globally, and readers like me would want to be able to read up on his wins separately without having to individually pick it out from a dense article. This particular list features professional standard prose, has an engaging lead, is comprehensive, is easy to navigate, complies with the manual of style and seems stable. That, for me, is the Featured list criteria and not the criteria to nominate for deletion. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider this nomination. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the Senna's Grand Prix wins are extremely notable; whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com, Fox Sports, Sky Sports for example. While Senna's win are listed in his article, that is only as part of his complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of this article. As mentions, this list allows an interested reader to compare and contrast his victories. The list meets the criteria for a Stand-alone list, given the length of the parent article. The article follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu. I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that the nominators point that "This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a F1 or Senna fan site" is not valid, as the list follows a style already common on Wikipedia. Harrias talk 07:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A clearly defined list on a notable topic. This looks like it should be up for a Featured List nom and not an AfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The list displays a clear merit for notability on a globally known individual. It would make sense for the list to be kept as it would allow users to easily navigate which of his victories they want to read about.  Z105space  (talk)  11:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No different to any other sports where very notable individuals have stats-based lists about their achievements. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * List don't need to simply pass WP:GNG. They need to pass the more specific WP:LISTN as well. Tvx1 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-sourced list of wins of a highly regarded driver in the sport's history. Addressing the nominator's argument that his wins are already on his article, it is listed in a complete results block format. A reader only interested in his victories would not easily be able to make comparisons. A link to this list could easily be added to that section using the template.  Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the above keep votes does actually attempt to address the actual issue whether the his list of wins as a group have enough notability in reliable mainstream sources, as outlined by WP:LISTN. Yes Senna is very notable and yes the fact that he won 41 races is notable as well. But I have not seen provide clear evidence being provided from any of the keep voters that the identity of all his wins as a group receives enough notability in the mainstream reliable sources that they merit a standalone article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Again this isn't a motorsport fansite. And remember that he's only the fifth all-time in number of Grands Prix wins. If really desired we could always incorporate a form of the list in his own article in a similar fashion to this. The claim that the results summary in his article doesn't allow an interested reader to easily find a compare his wins is nonsense. The wins are clearly highlighted by using the number one an by having a specific color. The wins stick out clearly from all the other results. Tvx1 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi . "Nonsense" is a strong word to use here. I can understand your stand but you should see that the editors out here are only trying to help you reach a decision on whether the article should be deleted or not. It's not a battle of you against others. Thanks for linking up WP:LISTN. I see that the guideline does clearly mention that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")" – given that this list is named List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna, I can now understand why you are debating. But your point that editors have not addressed the standalone notability is wrong. Multiple editors above, including Harrias, have shown that the stand alone detail is clearly notable. Reliable sources commenting on Senna's wins can be found quite easily specially given the recent Hamilton surge, for example – Fox Sports photo feature on Senna's F1 wins, The Telegraph on a watch series based on Senna's 41 wins, ESPN on Vettel crossing Senna's record, CNN on Hamilton matching Senna's victories, Fox Sports doing the same, BBC, The Guardian, Sky Sports, and many more. As Harrias mentions, this happens every time someone comes close to Senna's record. To preempt a possible rebuttal based on these references, WP:LISTN also says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Do reconsider this nomination if you can. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply I think you are misinterpreting WP:LISTN here. It states that there is no requirement that each item on the list is independently notable. That means one doesn't need to provide mainstream reliable sources for each and every race Senna won, discussing it in detail, but rather some mainstream sources that discuss the list of wins he achieved. With the exception of the Fox photo series you came up with, none of the sources you came up with mentions even one of the races he won. They only mention the fact that he won 41 races, which I already is the only notable fact about his wins. So having not seen any proof that the list of his wins (not just the number) is a notable topic in mainstream sources, there is no chance I will reconsider my nomination. I still don't think this article sits within the purpose of a general-purpose encyclopedia. What's most unconvincing in your stance, is that deleting this article would eradicate all information on Senna's wins from wikipedia. That's simply not true. His wins are already listed in his own article and could always be given a dedicated list there as well. The meaningfulness of his number of wins is already addressed in List of Grand Prix winners and List of Formula One driver records. A standalone list that does nothing but state where he won each of his 41 wins is therefore overkill. Tvx1 17:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining Tvx1. Let me clarify. I have never said that "deleting this article would eradicate all information on Senna's wins from wikipedia". On WP:LISTN, I have read up your explanation. Let me be honest that I am all but two months and a few days into this project so you and others obviously have more experience and knowledge than I have about policies and guidelines. For an editor like me, WP:LISTN's statement that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" would clearly signify that there is no need for the whole list to be documented. If one were to go by your interpretation, then the guideline should have read "The entirety of the list needs to be documented in sources for notability – but there is no requirement that each item on the list is independently notable." Given this, your interpretation of the current words of the WP:LISTN guideline seems faulty. If you believe that the current guideline does not represent what your interpretation alludes to, then with your experience you should go and change the guideline because the current wordings do not at all convey what you seem to be forwarding. I shall repeat, I am not an experienced editor here and you should not consider my words the final ones. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You handily left out the following sentence of the guideline though: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. This clearly shows that all the items in the list don't need to pass WP:GNG independently, but only the list of items have to as a group. All you have proven so far is that the number of wins he achieved is notable, not the set of which wins he achieved. Tvx1 18:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because as per guideline The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, your reply above may well have been the closing statement of the administrator closing this discussion as a keep. Tvx1 as I feel we both are repeating the same points, I would now await the administrator's views or of other editors'. It was a great learning experience commenting here. And I have to thank you for that. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.