Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of achievements by Ayrton Senna

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Ayrton Senna. I was going to close this as Delete - the arguments for such are clearly superior and more numerous - but in case anyone wants to merge anything useful across, I have redirected with history intact. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of achievements by Ayrton Senna[edit]

List of achievements by Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obvious notability for this list as a whole, a lot of achievements listed of very questionable notability. GameLegend (talk)

  • Comment - 1) I'm getting sick of this useless, endless and taking-to-nowhere debate; how long will it last? who is gonna take the decision of mantaining or deleting it? When such decision is taken, will people still be able to demand its removal or, in the case, reposting? 2) For those who are against keeping it, what do you suggest? which (any?) of the items would you keep and "permit" to be posted in the main article? Marceltp86 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like with every other driver who holds a multitude of absolute records (Schumacher, Vettel, Hamilton), the notable absolute records in a section at the bottom, as it already is. Though I'd vote to remove the 'most wins for McLaren', as it is another case of a very specific record (this one team). GameLegend (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have considered boldly editting them out, and came to the conclusion it would leave very little relevant, notable content. Hence I though an Afd would be preferrable. GameLegend (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is suggested above, there are plenty of lists with much more dubious and unreliably sourced articles, apecially about basketball players: will you suggest to delete everyone? This list intended to show the full picture of Ayrton Senna's career, and he is up to now the only Formula One racing driver with a page with detailed statistics. It seems quite strange that all of a sudden such questions came up. The article was first published in February, 2013. Every single stat posted is easily verifiable, and questioning this seems a little arrogant - to state which statistic or number is relevant or not. Check the page with the List of career achievements by Roger Federer or the aforementioned Michael Jordan's. These pages have many repeated and - as for your own judgement - irrelevant data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Other pages also being wrong, don't make this one right. GameLegend (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst every single statistic might be verifiable, it is not up to the casual reader to verify them. Every single statistic should be referenced, I know similar articles get away with not doing this, but that is not an excuse for it not to be done here.Martin451 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Senna was one of the top Formula 1 drivers of all time. Whilst some of the individual achievements may not be notable, when they are all taken together they become notable. A look at the article shows that there are enough citations to keep this as a stand alone list.Martin451 21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martin451, when he says that it is the whole of the achievements that show the greatness of someone. Senna deserves this page, my first intention when creating it was to make it a kind of a benchmark. Also, I have made some editions and deletions on my own after reading your comments - and I agree that some facts should be excluded, but knowing how many kilometres or laps he raced, for example, helps to give a clear view of the importance of his achievements. Thus, I consider this discussion over, as I don't see any reason why this article deserves to be excluded except for the fact that not every citation has a link - and that I can resolve through time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A citation of the fact is not a citation of the notability of "being the all-time leader in points scored for Toleman", or such things. GameLegend (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I have missed a change in Wikipedia policy that these sort of facts are now considered notable, as an inclusionist I have no problem with it. But last I remember Vettel's and Schumacher's pages were clipped because of exactly this reason. Any feedback on the general Wikipedia standing of such notability? GameLegend (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a "change" per se, more just an acceptance of the principles set out at WP:SPLIT (I noted WP:CFORK before but it is more accurately a split). Senna himself is notable as a sports person and listing those sporting achievements that made him a notable sports person is acceptable. Where listing them in his article would make the article too long (as in the examples given above), splitting them out into a list article is acceptable. Ayrton Senna is already 114k - adding these achievements would make it 150k+. Stalwart111 22:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So guys, I am removing the message that is on the top of the article, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.95.112.173 (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? The AFD template? No, that needs to stay until this discussion has finished and been closed. Stalwart111 12:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... and when will it finish? "GameLegend" seems determined to make this discussion last til the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I suggest you have a read through WP:AFD. AfDs (discussion like this one) generally last one week. Normally an admin will read through and decide the outcome based upon consensus and arguments. Some may be extended when an outcome is unclear and few people have contributed.Martin451 13:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this page is claimed to list achievements that show the greatness of Ayrton Senna the majority of the achievements that are listed are nowhere near unique and have been eclipsed by a considerable number of other drivers. Unless any actual records are listed that show his greatness and how he was greater than others I can't see the need for a seperate page for this. Tvx1 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, that argument doesn't make a lot of sense. These are achievements that made him notable and notability is not temporary. Just like in the examples provided above, many of the achievements might have been surpassed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't record them. And if we're going to record them, they shouldn't be in his article for the reasons outlined at WP:SPLIT. Stalwart111 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? So you think that achievements like 34th all-time in number of seasons competed, 26th all-time in number of Grands Prix race, 22th all-time in number of km raced, 8th all-time in number of consecutive wins, 10th all-time in number of podiums in one season, 13th youngest to have set the fastest lap of a race,etc... show his greatness and justify a separate page? Most of them aren't even great achievements since they weren't records when he set them and he has dropped even further in those rankings ever since. There's just not enough to justify this page. You could make such pages for just about any driver (of course some of them would be longer than others). Tvx1 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are some achievements that aren't relevant or sourced, removed them. That's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem, not a reason for deletion. If such lists can be created for other drivers, you should feel free to create them. The article creator has done exactly what guidelines suggest he do. Stalwart111 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arguments about notability are a bit of a side-track here because there is no doubt that a 3-time F1 World Champion is notable. Guidelines provide for lists like this where including such a list would otherwise make an article way too large and unwieldy which is undoubtedly the case here. Stalwart111 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said Ayrton Senna isn't notable by himself. I tried to point out that the majority of the so called "Great" achievements mentioned on this page aren't that great after all and do not do justice to his greatness at all. Furthermore if even a 7-time F1 world champion doesn't deserve such a page than why does a 3-time F1 world champion deserve one? Tvx1 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about "deserving" - we're not here to "reward" people with articles. We're here to record things deemed notable and he is. His achievements are part of what makes him notable and so we record those. If other drivers have similar (or longer) lists of achievements and recording those would create lengthy articles, creating separate lists might be appropriate in those cases too. But the fact that we have more to do isn't a good justification for deleting what has already been done (see WP:OSE). Stalwart111 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would really like this article to remain available in its original shape, because some of the statistics and informations it offers simply cannot be found elsewhere in internet. I understand its not written in an usual format, but then again it brings some new information about a very important sportsman, that would probably not fit in a conventional biography page. Mamadeira (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Mamadeira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The argument posed by "Tvx1" shows something very simple: he is a Michael Schumacher fan, just like the other guy "GameLegend", and thus he believes that even if Michael Schumacher (the greatest of all-time BECAUSE he has won more than others) does not have a page, then nobody deserves that. This is the silliest point I have read through this endless and useless discussion: it all started because a fan of someone believes that Senna wasn't as great. But I believe there are at the very least two reasons why we should keep this article: 1) as I have said before, there are lots of pages dedicated to sportspeople, specially basketball players, which simply LIST what they did and achieved: it does not need to be an all-time record, or something this impressive, it is just what he or she has achieved. And once this person is a notable - notability DOES NOT rely on records, but on charisma, fame, importance, historical relevance and influence -, he or she will call attention and bring readers to wikipedia as a means to RESEARCH about their lives and careers. Thus, the page works as a perfect source of what one achieved through his life and shows how great he or she was - not that great, for some; amazing, for others. 2) The weak and silly argument by Tvx1 ("if 7-time champion doesn't deserve such a page than why does a 3-time deserve?") shows, for example, that Michael Jordan (six-time), Kobe Bryant (five) and LeBron James (two) do not deserve their own 'List of career achievements' pages, once the 11-time NBA champion Bill Russell doesn't have one. From the tennis players, only Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have pages. Why don't Novak Djokovic or Pete Sampras deserve one? The intention of the page IS NOT to show that Senna was the ultimate driver ACCORDING TO NUMBERS, but to show everything he had achieved through his career, which WAS INTERRUPTED. It works as an interesting resource for people to find out more about him - many of the numbers (10th, 13th, etc) were top-2 or top-3 stats when he raced, by the way. And this page CAN and SHOULD be a benchmark for creating a page for Michael Schumacher (do you need any help, Tvx1?), Sebastian Vettel, Juan Manuel Fangio, Alain Prost, Jim Clark and others. It has never been a matter of ONLY SENNA deserving it. Don't put things this way. If you guys delete this page because IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW the numbers of one are not relevant, then you should EXCLUDE every single page except for the ones of the all-time leaders in the main stats. Create a rule for that: Basketball - Bill Russell; F1 - Michael Schumacher; Tennis - Federer; and so on. Honestly, I can't see any reason for deleting the page except for a selfish and biased fanboyish intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I do not like to be accused of having a certain opinion because of being a fan of someone. Now I'm going to reveal something you probably didn't expect. I'm a huge Ayrton Senna fan. The only reason I brought up Michael Schumacher is because a similar article has been created for him in the past and was deleted as quickly as it was created as pointed out earlier in the discussion. I might as well have mentioned Fangio and Prost as they both have won more titles than Senna did. I can't see why we have to make a special exception for him, even though I am a huge fan of him. I have voted for Delete because if we remove all the rather pointless stats from the page, the remaining few do not justify a seperate page and could easily be incorporated in his own article; which is why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. There is enough justification for this nomination by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:CRUFT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Senna's own article does him more than enough justice and the additional stats article does not make him any greater than he was. The fact that you cannot live with another user's opinion does not give you the right to aim a personal against that user. Tvx1 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the point is: instead of DELETING Senna's page because Schumy's was deleted, why not creating one for Schumacher in the same standards? From my point of view, not only Schumacher and Vettel, but also Fangio, Clark, Stewart and Prost deserve it - and I have been working on data for Fangio (which in my opinion was the GOAT). Marceltp86 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Clearly Senna is notable; that is not the issue, but a large proportion of these achievements are not notable even by F1 standards, let alone wider encyclopedic standards. Most of it is omiited from Senna's article not because it would make it too long, but because the statistics are of almost zero encyclopedic value. Even books on Senna don't cover this stuff. Wikipedia is not a stats dump, and point 3 of that policy was defined precisely for article like this one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guys, I have been updating Magic Johnson's page... I had nothing better to do in my life... so let's have fun and consider excluding it too? ¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To put it simple: if achievement pages such as this are permited for other sportsmen, then Senna's Achievement List cannote be deleted. If it is to be deleted, then also should be the achievement pages of other sportsmen. Wikipedia is not a place for fanboys to support their idols. Besides, i think marceltp86 has said enough about it.--Cassioyared (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Cassioyared (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence (or not) of other sportsmens' achievement pages is utterly irrelevant to whether or not this one gets kept. Please also note that referring to other editors as "fanboys" could be considered a personal attack. (Also, being absent for 10 months then suddenly reappearing to !vote in an AfD on the only subject you have ever edited raises eyebrows, I might note.) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the point is not like "oh, others have, so everyone deserves to have": the problem is the kind of arguments pro-deletion: it is being very biased and unfair: saying that a page should be deleted because of the (Ir)relevance of what the person has achieved. Come on! Wikipedia has a Dennis Rodman page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once again: where is your coherence? As far as I'm concerned - through reading the section of "articles for deletion" in the "sportspeople" - this is the only full list of achievements to be deleted. Marceltp86 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no idea what you mean by "where is your coherence", but I'll spell it out in plain English: the existence, or lack thereof, or the suggested deletion or lack thereof, of any other page, is completely irrelevant to whether or not this page should or should not be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coherence (Noun): Logical or natural connection or consistency. Another definiton - coherence: agreement, comprehensibility, concordance, congruity, connection, consistency, consonance, correspondence, intelligibility, rationality, union, unity. Marceltp86 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where I'm standing, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is being used by both sides (keep and delete). Also, the main reason shown for deleting the article is that the achievements are questionable in their notability. What people should consider when reading the list is that, even though some of Senna's stats are not top 10, he is high ranked in almost all of F1 stats. Isn't that a notable achievement? About the fanboy thing, I didn't nominate the fanboys, did I? What I'm trying to say is that the argument based on fanboyism will take this discussion nowhere. I think you agree with that. Finally, I don't see a problem in talking about an article I have helped to create. Even if it is the only one. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to become a Country Club, where people are judged by the number of articles they have worked in.193.194.132.70 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He may be high ranked in a lot of these F1 stats, but they are not notable stats. Most of these you will not find anywhere else; they have been contrived for the purposes of this page, which is why they are not sourced. All the notable stats can be put in the main article, the rest is stat trivia. And that goes for any F1 driver. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the sense of deleting a page for ayrton because there is not a similar one for other F1 drivers? Why not creating such a page for each of the other notable drivers (how many are they?)? why is it permitted for any basketball player? Let me guess: again, someone will answer me with "otherstuffexists"... Marceltp86 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand is that this discussion is about this article, and when people say "other stuff exists", it means that no other article matters in this discussion. There are over 800 notable F1 drivers, who decides which get a second article and which don't? Basketball doesn't figure even slightly in this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost 800 NOTABLE F1 drivers? This is the FULL number of racers who ever participated of a Grand Prix weekend. Let's try to be a little more reasonable here... Marceltp86 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point to try to create similar pages for other notable drivers as they already have been and have been deleted as quickly as they were created because of the exact same reasons this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to believe these articles will stick this time if we recreate them. Tvx1 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a reason to believe in that: this discussion here. Marceltp86 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 800 notable F1 drivers. If they were not notable, they would not have Wikipedia articles. That much is pretty clear, I'd have thought. How do you propose to decide which drivers have a special article and which don't? Answer: none of them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem - there are fewer and fewer records for which Senna is the current holder because of recent drivers like Schumacher and current drivers like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. It's possible that eventually many of his records will be overtaken. As each of them build longer driving careers (except for Schumacher who should probably have a SPLIT list already) articles like this might become necessary for them. Nobody seems willing or able to explain why reducing the list provided is better solved by deletion than editing. Anyone? Stalwart111 02:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has been explained and repeated multiple times. The fact that you claim that it hasn't been explained proves that you haven't read this discussion thoroughly. If we remove all the rather pointless stats from the page, the remaining few do not justify a seperate page and could easily be incorporated in his own article; which is why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. Tvx1 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there have been vague references to "removing pointless stats" without specifying which, or why, or how the references provided aren't adequate or the manner in which WP:SPLIT doesn't apply to an article that falls neatly into the confines of that guideline. The unwillingness to address specific issues has manifested as lazy "delete because we can't be bothered to clean this up" !votes. Stalwart111 13:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to be specific, I would delete all except the following:
All-time record for wins leading throughout a Grand-Prix: 19
All-time record for consecutive poles: 8
All-time record for consecutive front row starts: 24
All-time record for seasons with the most poles: 6 (record shared with Juan Manuel Fangio)
All-time record for consecutive wins at the same Grand Prix: 5 at the Monaco Grand Prix
All-time record for total pole-positions at the same Grand Prix: 8 at the San Marino Grand Prix
All-time record for consecutive poles at the same Grand Prix: 7 at the San Marino Grand Prix
All-time record for total wins leading throughout a GP in the same season: 5 in 1988, 1989 and 1991 (shared with Clark’s five in 1963 and 1965)
Youngest to achieve 50 & 60 pole-positions
Why would I delete all the others? Because all the other achievements are either not sufficiently notable for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia (they might be fine on an F1 stats site, or an Ayrton Senna tribute site, but they don't belong on Wikipedia), or they are already listed in Senna's article or at List of Formula One driver records. With respect to your statement "Therein lies the problem - there are fewer and fewer records for which Senna is the current holder because of recent drivers like Schumacher and current drivers like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. It's possible that eventually many of his records will be overtaken." - yeah, that's how records work. Someone holds the record, then someone else breaks the record, and then they hold the record. And for better or worse, 99% of people couldn't care less about who used to hold the record - all they care about is who holds it now. DH85868993 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, records work like that but notability doesn't (based on the principle of notability not being temporary), we record those things that made someone notable, even if those things are later done (or outdone) by others. List of career achievements by Babe Ruth is a great example because many of those records (including the most important ones listed in the lede) have since been broken. That doesn't mean we don't record them. But your list is a great start and a much, much more convincing argument than "I couldn't be bothered cleaning this up so delete it". I'd be inclined to include at least some of the items under the strangely titled Regulation Changings, at least one of which might (given the major rule-change quite possibly establishes the longer-term WP:EFFECT of that WP:EVENT) qualify as notable in its own right. I'd also be inclined to keep some of those records that he held for more than a decade (some more than 20 years) which were only overtaken (posthumously) in the 2000s like GPs led, laps led, front-row starts (+ single season record), Youngest triple-world champion, Youngest to score a Grand Slam. I'm still inclined to think that your list, plus my list, plus the ones from Marceltp86 below would be enough to justify a WP:SPLIT but at least we've moved on from using AFD as a clean-up tool. Stalwart111 01:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the thing. "plus my list, plus the ones from Marceltp86" is not notable, hence why a split is not justified. Like with Nigel Mansell for instance, the notable records he once held but no longer does, can be mentioned in-line in the text of Ayrton Senna. However 8 notable records do not justify a split article. Michael Schumacher has 32 notable and absolute records, and no one would argue he needs a split article. Sometimes a simple, notable, list, is all that's needed. GameLegend (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just updated the list of records in the main article: I included all the ones we have agreed on this section and excluded the "wins for McLaren". My proposal is to maintain the "List of achievements" but I'd agree in deleting IF ONLY we created a section named "curiosities" and included it on the "complete formula one results" section, and in this new section we dedicated to include the most important records he held (the ones mentioned by Stalwart111 and a few others) as a means to show his relevance: for example, it is quite impressive that 4 of the 9 longest pole-position streaks are his, or 2 of the 5 winning streaks at the same GP, or 2 of the 3 streaks of laps led. From my point of view, it is really important (as for the two age records or the total of poles, front rows and races led) to show that either he achieved that in a fewer number of GPs or that it took a way long time for this numbers to be surpassed. Thoughts? Marceltp86 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you trying to reword records that have been perfectly worded on the List of Formula One driver records? GameLegend (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit: nevermind, I see you invented the 'most pole positions for a national grand prix'. I think most will agree this is not a notable record. He holds the records for 'Most pole positions at the same Grand Prix'. A specific Grand Prix, whether it just happens to be his home grand prix or not, is not notable. GameLegend (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you guys' opinions are very, very biased. One says I fantasise records; the other says i made them up. I can see very clearly now that I'm not debating with Formula 1 followers, but with guys that believe to be owners of the truth; your opinion of notability and other stuff proves that: everything aside from "most championships", "Most wins" and "Most poles" is "not notable" according to the common sense. Formula One encyclopedias do care about these records I've been mentioning. Example: http://statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pole/national.aspx. Marceltp86 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a step back and consider how wide a variety, or lack there of, of F1 articles you have been involved with, and how many we have, you might want to rethink that statement. Making such accusations to others will not help your case. GameLegend (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bit. I said fantasy record in the respect of having a fantasy football league where people make up their own football teams.
  • Now it may be that Senna has won more rainy races than anyone else, but it is specifically against what Wikipedia is all about if you have made those calculations yourself and that data is being published in wikipedia based on your numbers for the first time anywhere. This is the essence of Wikipedia. We state facts that have been stated and compiled by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not by ourselves. Wikipedia is absolutely NOT a method of self-publishing. Do you get what I am saying? --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me ask you a question - using Rainy races as an example: did you count up the number of rainy races, then count up the number of races Senna won and compared it to the numbers of races other drivers have won. If the answer is yes, then you can't use it in wikipedia. If the answer is no, I got the numbers from a reliable source, then you can use it in Wikipedia. Do you understand that? --Falcadore (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeah, now we are somehow reaching a consensus. The list proposed by DH85868993 (an Alain Prost fan? =P) is somehow the same that is already present at the main article, removing the wins for McLaren, and including other 4 marks. I believe that we could include a few other things:
One of only three drivers to start from the front ow in every race of a season (or we may name it in another way, like 'Highest percentage of front row starts in a season') - this is present in the list of formula 1 records, as it is very hard to achieve;
All-time record for most pole-positions in a national GP: even though it may not be part of the wikipedia list of records, it is a relevant fact, and also a curious one, once every driver aims winning or setting the pole in his home race;
I believe that the lists I've produced for street circuits, rainy races and races abandoned in the lead should somehow be included, because the two first cases show his dominance, and the other points out how many times he was in a position of winning (races and even championships) but failed most of the time due to the lack of reliability in the time he raced.
What do you guys think? Marceltp86 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we include 'street circuits, rainy races and races abandoned in the lead', they need verified sources stating both its an uniqueness, no no original research, and notability. Memory is not something to base facts on, so there needs to be a factual basis that he is more successful on street circuits and rain races, and there needs to be a factual basis that he abandoned more races from the lead than any other driver (and even then, what are the benchmarks for that?). GameLegend (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have to be proven that reliable sources actually keep records specifically related to these categories. Most wins in rainy races is meaningless without knowing how many races actually were rainy. And victories on street circuits is always going to be problematic because not many people can agree on what is a street circuit. Do you count Spa, Reims, Pescara or even Nurburgring or does it have to be a mickey mouse circuit like Phoenix or Monaco. Where does Adelaide sit, part of its circuit is completely artificial and laid and dismantled before each race. So unless you can reliable define the terminology and refer it to a reliable record then no. If it is a record you';ve only compiled by yourself, then just delete it. Its your fantasy record, not an actual record. --Falcadore (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's your fantasy record". Ok, let's see things this way, then. The thing is that I wrote two sections in the article, one called "dominance" where i put the total numbers of Senna in rainy races (most poles, 2nd most wins) and I make a link for a list of these races and I even wrote three topics mentioning the discussion - using sources as the newspaper "The Times" and ESPN as a basis for saying that Senna has the highest winning percentage even though he is second in total wins. Senna is world-renowned as the rainmaster, so that should be somehow explained. Marceltp86 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that record you have compiled yourself falls afoul of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If Senna is a world renowned rainmaster, you source it and you get the source to justify why he is a world renowned rainmaster, you don't invent your own statistic to justify it. --Falcadore (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is full of irrelevant facts, essentially everything down from few useful stats at the start is trivia. How is the knowledge that Aryton Senna set the fourth highest number of fastest laps for Lotus, or that he is "One of three drivers to set at least 5 poles in more than 1 Grand Prix event" anything more than indiscriminate information? QueenCake (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ayrton Senna - Remove the non-notable records and undo the split. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT. If the question needs to be asked as to what is and is not notable, then apply reliable source reference to each record. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that this topic has been discussed before. Talk:Ayrton Senna#Records. --Falcadore (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any specifically unique records can be mentioned in the main article, but as a whole, this article does not meet the criteria as a fork. Whether other similar articles exist or not is irrelevant - we are not discussing those articles, but this one - and this one should not be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Love for Ayrton Senna, don't get me wrong, but a lot of what is listed here seems to violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. A lot of these records seem to be quite trivial and excessive. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is not here to provide a bunch of facts for you and your sports buddies to settle a bet about who got what stat. The most important ones can be listed in the main article. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:01, 29 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_achievements_by_Ayrton_Senna&oldid=1144427186"