Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus was that the article is not wp:indiscriminate enough to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am aware that this was nominated yesterday and withdrawn, and am also aware that this was a content split. However, this list is massively WP:INDISCRIMINATE and we don't need this level of detail on his careers statistics. For example, we do not need a list of every single podium finish- the wins list is sufficient- or a list of every pole position, and most of the records section are sourced only to a stats database. Therefore, this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, as there are not independent reliable sources that mention most of this information together- you may find 166 sources for his 166 pole positions, but not any single non-stats DB sources talking about the poles in collective. A lot of these overly detailed stats were not in Lewis Hamilton article originally, so claiming that it's a split and so justified is not correct. WP:NLIST and WP:GNG are not met Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC) In particular, the diffs for the split are Special:Diff/1015490996 & Special:Diff/1015749547, which contains only a fraction of the content in this page. Creating a split in order to add masses of indiscriminate information is not correct use of a split. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep What we don't need is a repeat nomination, one day after discussion has closed. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The nomination is patently absurd because the subject is a massive superstar, all-time best in his field, and recently knighted. The claims that WP:NLIST and WP:GNG are not met are blatantly false and it appears that the nomination does not understand these guidelines. For example, WP:NLIST states 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." and so most of the nomination's wikilawyering is wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was withdrawn quickly, it's perfectly valid to renominate as I believe a proper consensus is needed on it. If the first AfD hadn't been withdrawn so quickly, I would have voted delete for exactly these reasons, and then it wouldn't have been eligible for withdrawal, but would have had a full AfD discussion. Also, claiming this is an article split is misleading, as much additional content was added that was not in the main article. As it being a split seems to be the reason for the first withdrawn AFD, it is valid to challenge that. If the AFD outcome was anything other than withdrawn, I would agree it is disruptive to re-nominate, but I believe that the original AFD was valid, and so a full discussion is beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was going nowhere. Pages of this sort are quite standard for top achievers in every sport. Examples follow and there are many more. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the person who nominated and withdraw the first nomination, I think I owe an explanation.

Firstly, I do NOT believe that this second nomination is disruptive. The first nomination was open for just 28 hours, in that time there were only two votes (both keep, making it 2-1 in favour of keep, but one was the article creator).

This means that the discussion was curtailed, rather aggressively. Naturally, who ever closes this should consider those arguments, but the first nomination did not fufill the requirements for an AFD and the result of it should therefore be considered moot.

Secondly, this AFD nomination considers things the first does not, namely WP:GNG.

Finally, I withdrew it because I no longer believed in my own rational, I had not considered that the number of bytes of Lewis Hamilton was as large as it was.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at SSSB's user page to see where they are coming from. But it's upside down! Editors should please note that April Fools only last one day and that there are, in any case, rules about joke nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASCARfan0548 flipped my user page and I simply forgot to undo it! Fixed now! Also, the first nomination wasn't a joke one.
SSSB (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that some of the content in this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, namely the lists of poles, podiums and GP2 wins. However, the parts of the article that detail records and awards do, to me, satisfy WP:NLIST. Therefore I feel that these parts are appropriate for a WP:SPLIT.
SSSB (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information in question is not indiscriminate in a general sense – it is highly specific. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article" and that's what's been done here. That policy therefore supports the existence of this page. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. In any case, this is irrelevant as I agree that the article passes WP:NLIST, even if I disagree that the lists of poles and wins should be included. An AfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss which statistics do or do not belong in the article, that can be discussed on the article talk page if this page is kept.
SSSB (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of this information (the lists of wins, poles, podiums, and championships) is useless and needlessly repetitive since it is covered on the main article. These lists aren't introducing anything new.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hamilton's article has been ballooning with information which is clearly noteworthy but not essential to the core biography. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BUT this could have done with a few more weeks in the drafts before implementing the live change. The article is still a bit messy and the replacement summary paragraphs on the main Lewis Hamilton article are clumsily written and need tidying. —Ave (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think most of this article is important enough to keep, and certainly you wouldn't want to merge everything from it back into Lewis Hamilton. I have issues with this article and some of what's on it, but that is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2021 (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.