Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish

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 delete. Keep arguments are arguments to avoid and do debunk the NOT argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish

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

Just Trivia. Wikipedia is not a stats site. T v x1 21:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winners okay (List of Formula One Grand Prix winners), but podium finishers? Noooo. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again see the 5^th bullet point down on WP:IDL. SSSB (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... per WP:NOTSTATS. This is no more notable than List of baseball pitchers who have won at least one game and, as such, isn't discussed by anybody outside of stats sites.

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again see WP:OTHERSTUFF and the WP:NOSTATS is discussed below, but I will reiterate, nostats specifically targets ""indiscriminate" stats and stats that "lack context" this isn't indiscriminate as I proved its notability below and it does not lack context, the context is very clear. SSSB (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I don't see the problem, this article contains as much trivia as other such articles, (List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton, List of red-flagged Formula One races, List of Formula One broadcasters to name just a few), if these are permitted then I fail to see why List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish should be deleted. SSSB (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC). Just realised that this AFD fits the 5^th bullet point down on I don't like it, furthermore having read the resons for deletion and what wikipedia is not, I don't see anything that would cause this article to be deleted. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SSSB (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF.T v x1 15:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over two-third of the included drivers are already listed in the article on grand-prix winners. There is no evidence that they are independently notable as podium finishers as well. This is just stats trivia and it is actually almost entirely based on StatsF1, a dedicated stats site. And that's where this information belongs, not on Wikipedia which is not a stats site. There is nothing here demonstrating notability of the subject.T v x1 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two thrids of drivers appering in another list is not a reason for this to be deleted, the two lists list a different achivevemts and a thrid of the drivers don't appear on the list for grand prix winners. As for What Wikipedia is not it talks about "Statistics that lack context" and therefore I think that List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish should stay as it does not lack context. As for the notabillity, I agree that the article could do with more links to rove notabillity but these will be added with time WP:ATD, however her are some source which I think prove notabillity, Lance Strolls Azerbaijan podium proves he belongs in Formula 1, |100 podiums for Hamilton, Hulkenberg's 7 missed chances to score his first F1 podium. These sources all prove that podium finishes are considered a major achivment and therefore I think that this list is notable. SSSB (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's just what it is your opinion. What you think. Your sources prove the notability of a couple of independent events. By now, Hamilton and Hülkenberg are notable for much more than merely having achieved a podium finish. The sources you cite do not prove that the whole list of them is notable.T v x1 17:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Its not just my opinion, Hulkenberg's 7 missed chances to score his first F1 podium suggests that Hulkenberg would be more notable had he had a F1 podium and Lance Strolls Azerbaijan podium proves he belongs in Formula 1 suggests that Stroll would not be as notable had he not achived a F1 podium, these sources prove that it isn't just me who thinks that F1 podiums are notabale but that F1 journalists also consider a podium a notable achivment, weather it be the first or the hundredth or the fact you haven't achived a podium after several seasons. These sources are just a handfull of podium related articles where the podium is at the centre of the article, you have agnolged that these sources document something which is notable, if individual podiums (or failing to achive a podium after a long time in the F1) are notable I fail to see why all podiums wouldn't be notable and therefore I don't see why a this list is not, in your eyes, notable. SSSB (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Just realised that this AFD fits the 5^th bullet point down on I don't like it, furthermore having read the resons for deletion and what wikipedia is not, I don't see anything that would cause this article to be deleted. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You cannot cast a vote twice. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.(moved to after original argument to make one arguemnt and therefore one vote.)SSSB (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SSSB. 81.102.239.214 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — 81.102.239.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pretty certain that this is simply SSSB logged out.T v x1 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, and what makes you say that? SSSB (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A random IP that has never before edited wikipedia suddenly arrives to make exactly one edit on this site to precisely the AFD on an article you created to state "Keep per SSSB after you had already made two votes yourself. How stupid do you think wikipedias really are?T v x1 15:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote twice on purpose, I merely wanted to add to what I had already argued and put it at the bottom to keep the discussion in chronological order, as for this random user, (s)he undoubtled looked at the article, saw it was nominated for deletion, didn't think it should be deleted and added his opinion as (s)he is invited to do. SSSB (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you really wan't us to believe that the first ever Wikipedia article this IP stumbled on is a recently-created, little advertised, AFD-subjected article on podium finishers? Now what which way you turn it, this edit is suspicious enough not be given much or any weight by whoever comes to judge the outcome of this discussion.T v x1 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:AFDSOCK I agree that it is suspicious and I apologise for my perhaps rude behaviour. I doubt it was the first but they found it and the result was their first edit. SSSB (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems as notable as other similiar articles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2018 (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.