# Talk:Kimi Antonelli

@Keljou You are editorialising every section of the article with nitpicking, POV-pushing trivia in an attempt to deride the subject, please stop. You have additionally removed sourced content on several occasions to do so and/or placed references that are completely unrelated to the content, such as Wolff saying he talks about Antonelli too much, all content related to ADAC F4's demise after Antonelli left, the number of entrants to that competition (at no point has this been attributed to Antonelli's victory in secondary sources), the fact he set the fastest lap before crashing at Monza, the fact Prema struggled with setups in the new F2 regulations—which was immediately verified inline by multiple, reliable citations—and his teammate fared worse than he did when their inter-team battle was widely reported, and the fact Formula Regional is a Formula Three series—even the FIA refer to it as Regional Formula 3. You are cherry-picking unrelated information and removing sourced facts to force your narrative. MB2437 02:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not, your fanservice narrative is not encyclopedic and you cherry pick journalist articles that suit your narrative Keljou (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
At what point is there fanservice? All content is correctly sourced and due weight is applied. His highs and lows are equally and neutrally discussed. It is very widely sourced that Prema struggled last year, as further proven by Bearman finishing outside the top 10; it is not cherrypicking when there are entire professional articles written on the subject. As for the Herbert quote, it would be a good one if there were any reliable sources covering it, which there are not because nobody in any sort of professional journalism takes him seriously—it is like quoting Tucker Carlson on Joe Biden. MB2437 17:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
You cherry pick only the pro Antonelli articles and delete all articles that don't suit your fan service. Johnny Herbert is a former F1 race winner and respected driver, you're clearly a biased fan of Antonelli Keljou (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I only removed unreliable sources and original research. You were the one who removed a range of sourced content that you felt portrayed him in any sort of positive light and added an array of unrelated quotes and details to downplay his achievements. What does ADAC F4 shutting down have to do with him? What does Wolff "talking too much" have to do with his F2 season? Herbert is a respected driver, not a respected commentator.[1][2][3] There equally aren't any quotes lauding his pole position and podium; the facts are presented neutrally without commentary and puffery. On that note, please read WP:DUE. You're clearly a biased fan of Antonelli is rich from the person whose entire editing history involves editorialising his article... We assume good faith here. MB2437 18:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
You allow only pro Antonelli articles and ban articles that don't suit your fan service. The ADAC lack of cars is a useful info for readers and it's relevant as it was attended by Antonelli, so why hide that it had few cars and it was the last year then it was discontinued? Wolff's disappointment on his F2 season is worth to be noted. Johnny Herbert is a famous ex F1 driver and notable to be quoted, why can you quote a karting magazine's opinion and not a quote by Herbert? Keljou (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Those articles have nothing to do with Antonelli. There is a difference between the words of a reliable source and an unreliable one whose words have only been parroted by dodgy tabloids because nobody in proper motorsport media takes him seriously. Wolff's disappointment on his F2 season—what? The quote had nothing to do with his F2 season. MB2437 13:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Those articles are about the 2022 ADAC F4 and the paragraph is about the 2022 ADAC F4 attended by Antonelli so they are related. It's like saying that F1 has nothing to do with Antonelli, which might be true in the near time. Keljou (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The administration of ADAC F4 has absolutely nothing to do with him. It would if it meant he couldn't compete there the next year for that reason, but he had no plans to. MB2437 13:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Since your inclusion criteria is Grand Prix winner, let's look shall we:
Nico Rosberg: Kimi is definitely a generational talent. He showed it all the way through in karting, with the talent at the level of Verstappen and Hamilton.[4]
Lewis Hamilton: I can't imagine what it's like at 18 to do what he's doing. I think he's been doing fantastically. To be thrown in at the deep end at 18. He didn't even have his driving licence when he first started racing in F1. It's a lot on someone's shoulders. I think he's doing a great job.[5]
Max Verstappen: I'm not surprised, but again, when you just start in F1, there's so much to learn and to already be at this pace is very impressive. But I'm not surprised at the same time. He'll only get better, to be honest. It's as simple as that.[6]
Lando Norris: He's in F1 for a reason. Everything else he did in his car racing career has been very strong. He's got a very good team mate that beat Lewis [Hamilton] over the last couple of years. So, if he's now able to beat that team mate, being George, then he's clearly doing a very good job.[7]
I think all of these amount to puffery without a driver profile section (see drivers like Oscar Piastri, Lewis Hamilton, and Charles Leclerc), just like it is editorialising to add inflammatory quotes from seasoned bullshitters.
One could replace the karting quote (which is from the largest publication covering the discipline): "With eight international titles, he is the second-most successful junior kart racer in history after Max Verstappen". The quote is more succinct, easier to verify, and more relevant to the rest of his career. MB2437 13:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
You quote karting articles which are almost unknown and you ban Johnny Herbert and Ralph Schumacher just because they don't suit your fan service. How can a karting paper be more relevant than actual F1 drivers? And karting papers praise hundreds of drivers, karting doesn't mean anything or Liuzzi and Fisichella would be multiple F1 champions Keljou (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Karting papers praise hundreds of drivers. If you actually read karting media, you would know just how wrong you are—very rarely do they publish entire editorial articles on junior drivers. Even drivers like Christian Costoya and Dries Van Langendonck have evaded this sort of content. Liuzzi and Fisichella were only successful in their late teens, and their karting success is still relevant regardless. Not even remotely comparable—Liuzzi won a World Championship at 21, Antonelli won back-to-back European Championships at 14/15. Herbert and Schumacher are both famously unreliable sources whose quotes are only published by unreliable tabloids who will publish anything to farm engagement. MB2437 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The number of participants in the ADAC is immediately obvious to anyone who views the ADAC season page and the number of participants ranges anyway; it was not always 11.
If you are going to include information from pundits, it has to be balanced with other pundits unless there is a wide consensus amongst pundits. The consensus among pundits (as explained above) is that Antonelli is a generational talent. Herbert's view is not the consensus in the F1 community. Also, the part about suspension is too specific and only reflects one race that did not have a notable result, and comments from pundits should ideally be about a driver's general characteristics, or a major event e.g rule-breaking, wins, championships, impressive overtakes, huge accidents etc. Coming 10th after a component change is not that. Anything not 'pro' a driver therefore needs to be a more general comment with consensus amongst pundits, such as Raikkonen struggling with cars that don't have a pointy front end, or Massa's bogey track being Albert Park, or Piquet Sr. making offensive comments, or Vettel losing his cool. But they have to be balanced, as we strive for encyclopedic language. PääsukeH (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Stop re-adding content that is in dispute until we reach a compromise or someone else gives their view. MB2437 13:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
On the ADAC point, I agree with MB2437. How many people are participating in the series has no relevance. I don't see an issue with include Herbert's opinion, the issue is that Herbert's opinion is the only opinion given in the "2025" section, making the section non-neutral. I don't see why this is relevant, because nobody (least of all the reader) knows how much the new suspension contributed to Russell's victory. He may even have still won with the old suspension. I think these are all the issues you are edit warring over. If there are others, please let me know.  SSSB (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The only other thing still being discussed is replacing Wolff's quote on his performances with one that was made before the F2 season started, had nothing to do with his results, and was ultimately untrue. MB2437 15:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree, Wolff's quote was taken completely out of context, and simply does not belong there within the article.  SSSB (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I think Antonelli setting the fastest lap before his crash at Monza should be included because it was widely reported on at the time, if only as a 'and he briefly set the fastest lap'.  PääsukeH (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Keljou: If you would like to repeat your claim that the users in this discussion are incompetent and explain why. MB2437 20:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

His name is not Kimi Antonelli, his name is Andreas Antonelli. The Kimi is a middle name with a disputed origin. Nonetheless, the article was previously (and imo correctly) named
”Andreas Kimi Antonelli”
Why the article name change? I cannot see a talk page discussing this or a consensus made. 2A02:C7C:8469:C700:BC3C:3428:F683:83DA (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Kimi Antonelli#Requested move 2 August 2025, where a successful requested move was passed. The reason behind this is that "Kimi Antonelli" is his common name, meaning there are more published reliable secondary sources that name him as "Kimi Antonelli" instead of "Andrea Kimi Antonelli". GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
It was moved by consensus, and so one person complaining isn't going to move it back. See WP:Move review if you believe the outcome/process was wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The linked source clearly states "Mercedes boss Wolff: Antonelli underwhelming at Italian GP", this is a sport so it's obvious that all comments are referring to performance and it's usually not necessary to specify it. If you wanted to be redundantly precise, you could have just added "performance" instead of deleting all the sourced edit I made. Russell's flu is very relevant as it slowed down Russell by a long margin, so it must be noted as Antonelli wasn't able to beat an ill teammate. This shows your bias and you're using excuses to delete any sourced edits that disprove your fan service narrative of exceptional talent by Antonelli which is disproved by facts. Keljou (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The only place in the linked source where I could find the statement "Mercedes boss Wolff: Antonelli underwhelming at Italian GP" was in the headline. When you read the source, it clearly states that Toto specifically "All of the race was underwhelming", which suggests the headline was merely clickbait.
Once again, the articles you linked about Russell's illness only discussed how it could have affected his performance at a different circuit but did not because it was Baku. If you can find a reliable source that supports this claim and, in turn, links it to Kimi's performance in those words specifically, I will add it to the page. In its current form, however, it is original research, which is why several editors removed it, not because of a bias.
MadelynnSienna (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I second what MadelynnSienna says: the source does not say that Russell's performance was adversely affected by the flu come race day - that is your WP:SYNTHESIS.  SSSB (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree with MadelynnSienna and SSSB above. Even if you can find an RS claiming it negatively affected Russell's performance—which would have to be attributed—it is not relevant to Antonelli's race. It is not fan service to not slag someone off and maintain a neutral point of view, a policy you clearly misunderstand. MB2437 16:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I think your arguments will probably get a warmer reception if you edit articles besides Antonelli’s. I’m not too involved with the Kimi page but the WP:SPA pattern of activity looks a little odd, especially when community consensus is so strongly against you. Namelessposter (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@Keljou: Stop edit warring. Your behavior is bordering on trolling. No one is saying Russel's relative performance isn't relevant to Antonelli, and if you don't understand the difference then there are questions of WP:COMPETENCE. If you do understand and are spitefully removing the content as you did here and here then you are not here to build an encyclopedia.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Then if Russell is relevant, why do you delete that in Baku Russell had flu which slowed Russell's performance? And why do you delete that Russell is ahead of Antonelli in all races? This proves this page has double standards Keljou (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Even Russell said it didn't really impact his performance due to the nature of the circuit, so what is the relevance? It is purely POV-pushing editorialisation. MB2437 17:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Russell said he wasn't even going to race and Bottas was ready to replace him, and you claim you're not a fan of Antonelli with ridiculous pov? Lol I'm reporting you to Wikipedia Keljou (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Four independent editors, besides @Mb2437, who work across a variety of pages on Wikipedia, have found that the statements you have added to the page regarding the subject of Russell's illness synthesis, original research, odd and bordering on trolling.
To put it plainly, an article claiming that a driver was not ready to race and about to be temporarily replaced is not relevant enough to be mentioned on their teammate's page in the absence of a direct correlation to them in the source itself.
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before claiming that another editor who disagrees with you is POV-pushing. MadelynnSienna (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to outline precisely why we don't synthesis:
From my point of view, if Russell was about to withdraw (with Bottas ready to step in), but then Russell decided to race, it is likely that Russell woke up decided that he would be able to perform without his illness impeding him. Therefore making his illness irrelevant to his (or anyone else's) performance.  SSSB (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Attending the Baku weekend doesn't mean he wasn't slowed down by flu. Russell said he could finish the race only because Baku is less demanding than other races, in Singapore he would have retired. He had to skip the media day and professional drivers like Chadwick said he was slowed down Keljou (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Once again, that only has to do with Russell specifically. Any correlation to Antonelli, in the absence of a reputable source that does the same, is synthesis and original research. MadelynnSienna (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe you may have misunderstood the problem at hand, as this is not a double standard. No one has said Russell is irrelevant. It is whether the source you are citing supports what you are claiming. In your case, the article discusses Russell's race with respect to his own performance, not Antonelli's. Furthermore, it goes as far as to say it did not have a massive impact on it because it was a less physical circuit like Baku. Nowhere in the article does it reference to Kimi. Hence, you cannot use it to say that his performance was abysmal, that would be WP:SYNTH. By comparison, the sources you removed clearly compared the two drivers' performances, making any mention of the same in this article justifiable.
If you can supply us with a reputable source that states that Russell being ill affected Kimi's performance, we will add it to the article. Surely, if it were true, it should be easy to find supporting references, correct?
As for removing Russell's lead over Antonelli, that's usually something that is added to a page post-season, as that's when we have the most complete idea of what the head-to-head actually looks like. You seem to have added it prematurely, which is why another editor deleted it (I think they mentioned this in the edit summary too). MadelynnSienna (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@Keljou this is the third time you have made spiteful edits - [8]. Please refrain from doing so in the future, as it suggests that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. MadelynnSienna (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
There is an entire essay about this sort of behaviour, and it's disruptive nature: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point  SSSB (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Yea, this is ridiculous. A trip to WP:ANI is overdue.  Cerebral726 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need so many images on this article? There seems to be an image of almost every car he's driven, and multiples of the same car e.g. two very similar Mercedes 2025 images, and two very similar F2 car images. Also, how is an image of his father's car or Senna's car at all relevant and providing improvement to an article about Antonelli himself? Frankly, I'm amazed that with this many trivial images, this pass a GA review, for which media are relevant to the topic- which images of Antonelli's dad's car and Senna's car are clearly not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree the Senna and Marco Antonelli images should be removed. Don't have high enonugh relevance.  Cerebral726 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Personally don't think the image subtitled "Antonelli has retired from four Grands Prix in his rookie season." is very relevant, either. The statement is covered in the prose. MadelynnSienna (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Captions repeat content in prose. MB2437 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, captions repeat content in prose, but usually not word-for-word and a more specific example of the prose. There is a level of specificity to them that "Antonelli has retired from four Grands Prix in his rookie season" does not have, making it, to me, quite unnecessary. On the other hand, if it were subtitled "Antonelli retiring from the XYZ Grand Prix, one of his four DNFs this season" it would feel slightly more purposeful in this article. MadelynnSienna (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
The image of the car in subtitled "Antonelli won both the Italian F4 and ADAC F4 titles in 2022, as well as a gold medal at the FIA Motorsport Games" could probably go too. Alongside the image subtitled "Antonelli (pictured in Spielberg) progressed to FIA Formula 2 with Prema in 2024." MadelynnSienna (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The Marco Antonelli image is perfectly relevant to his early life, as is the Senna image, which aids the reader in understanding why he chose his driver number. MB2437 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
How does an image of Senna driving a random car aid the reader in understanding why he chose his driver number? That is more clearly explained in the prose. The image is quite unnecessary as both @Joseph2302 and @Cerebral726 have agreed. MadelynnSienna (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I find it useful for readers to note important points of the season in captions. Specific examples also introduce WP:DUE concerns. In terms of the Senna photo, it is not immediately obvious to an uninformed reader why the number 12 is associated with Senna. It was not a permanent number and goes unmentioned on his article. MB2437 23:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Chaning the caption to "Antonelli retired from the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, one of four retirements in his rookie season is not a WP:DUE concern. Instead it describes what the image is of (his retirement at the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix). Just scrolling through the article, it is very heavy on the pictures. We can certainly cut one of the images in the 2022 section - the one of the podium makes a nice change from the long series of red and white cars. The other ventures, other racing and personal life sections are so short that the three images here (three because the image of Antonelli retireing in Imola overlaps into other racing) just feel crowded. I would remove one of the car images (probably the one where it says he debuted with Mercedes aged 18, as the least instructive), bump the other two images up, and have the sports car image and cut the senna image.  SSSB (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mb2437 just so you know the scoring system during hamilton's rookie season was different from this season, so technically Kimi didn't beat hamilton's record, because today hamilton would have had over 200 points. Also yahoo sports isn't a reliable source. 
I'm referencing this edit btw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimi_Antonelli&diff=prev&oldid=1321354186 ~2025-32434-36 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You're using the word technically wrong. Technically it is a record despite the fact that Antonelli only holds the record because more points are awarded these days. It may be worth adding a footnote explaining that Hamilton would hold this record if the points system is extrapolatated. I'm sure a source exists discussing that. At the same time, maybe we shouldn't as it would open up a can of worms of "but [driver x] did it in a shorter season than [driver y].  SSSB (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Technically, he did. Antonelli could still end up having over 200 points. Was going to add a footnote in the prose when his season is summarised in December; Hamilton is not the only driver to have a high points % in his debut season and it's worth noting that his record also benefitted from an extrapolated points system. Also, Yahoo is a reliable source. MB2437 09:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
@SSSB I'm using the word correctly, albeit I forgot to include a comma between "so" and "technically", so I am not sure what you're getting at here, because technically, I used the word technically correctly, meaning technically you're wrong, regardless, that technically wasn't the premise of my message.
While technically he can end with 200 points, technically I don't think it's possible given his past performance, however since Wikipedia is technically and encyclopedia, so technically my opinion doesn't matter. However, since this is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be transparent and based on facts, so given that you yourself admit that he benefitted from the new point system, as did Hamilton on his debut season, so technically  this is a useless and misleading statistic, and technically has no bearing when it comes to comparing who was better during their rookie season. Oh and I stand corrected my Yahoo as an unreliable source statement, as technically  it is a reliable source. ~2025-32225-70 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The F1 points system and how it has developed over time is wikilinked in the section. Anyone reading will be aware of that technicality, just like they will be aware both he and Hamilton waltzed into race-winning cars in their rookie seasons so can factor that into whether they deem it as noteworthy as reliable sources do. Hamilton still holds the—more important—joint-record for most rookie wins, discussed on his article alongside his record-setting 109 points. The value of each of these metrics—wins, poles, fastest laps, podiums, and points—have all altered drastically throughout history, but we do not delete mentions of these records where they are relevant and noteworthy, just state they held them at the time.
This record will remain just as noteworthy as it was before, hence why it has been prominently discussed ever since Antonelli debuted and will continue to be discussed in season summaries.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Several drivers have had that opportunity since 2010; its inclusion, previously at Lewis Hamilton—along with a litany of relatively meaningless records—was never an issue until it was broken. If I am correct, he is set to also become the highest-placed rookie since 2007, which is probably more prominent in itself given the value of the WDC has never altered nearly as significantly as our other metrics have.
My proposal for a potential footnote—should it be sourced come the end of the season—would be to mention it by percentage points scored from those available, rather than extrapolating from a different system, which introduces error and would be borderline misinformation. Hamilton had 109/170 (64.12%), Jacques Villeneuve 78/160 (48.75%), Jackie Stewart 34/90 (37.78%), Clay Regazzoni 33/117 (28.21%; although 45.83% of those entered), and Antonelli 122/565 (21.59%; so far, could end 18.83–31.64%). MB2437 22:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)