Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jim Clark

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jim Clark

[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:

I am also nominating the following related page, which is more or less an inditical case and which I overlooked initially for inexplicable reasons:

WP:F1 Consensus is that these articles do not meet WP:LISTN. Moreover these are content forks of their own articles. T v x1 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. T v x1 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per very recent consensus on a similar AfD here. No demonstration of meeting LISTN is presented in any of the above articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfDanGurney (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Same reasoning as with other recent nominations: "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." 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to previously established consensus. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per the consensus established on a previous AfD EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Seems like solid consensus for this has been developed elsewhere. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:02, 13 February 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.