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 all. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill[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 also nominating the following related pages:

WP:F1 Consensus is that these articles do not meet WP:LISTN. Only one of the drivers in question even ranks in the top ten of number of wins. Moreover these are content forks of their own articles. T v x1 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there is zero indication that these even come close to satisfying WP:NLIST. The only relevant sources I found were either self-confessed stats sites (which Wikipedia isn't) and WP:SPS youtube video of Raikkonen's wins. SSSB (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Bwoah. I was only able to find similar things to SSSB. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per SSSB EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – To quote a truly wise editor (myself), "Needless fork of the results tables already provided in the main articles. Wikipedia is not a statistical database, and these are entirely redundant. They completely fail NLIST, which states that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and there is no evidence on any of these articles that such coverage exists. Even a cursory check for each of these will show that virtually the only time they are considered as a set is by statistics databases." The exact same rationale applies here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:35, 31 January 2023 (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.