Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists of people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists of people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists of people. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Lists of people

List of most-followed Kick channels

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [1] [2] [3]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-followed Twitch channels & List of most-followed TikTok accounts, so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists, this list serves a valuable purpose by documenting significant trends in an evident and impactful space. Claims that the list is “unmaintainable” due to dynamic follower numbers are not strong enough for deletion. Other Wikipedia pages regularly update stats like revenue, sales figures, or most-followed accounts, and the content remains relevant despite being dynamic. As a growing platform, Kick has generated significant media attention, and reliable sources regularly cover its top streamers. Listing the top 30 most-followed channels does not represent an indiscriminate collection of information; it focuses on the most popular accounts on one of the newest major streaming platforms, essential for cultural and media studies. The argument that Kick's controversies are the only notability factor ignores the clear public interest in tracking which creators hold the most followers. I agree that it needs better citations, but that will be fixed with time. I know that editors, including myself, will maintain and update this list as needed. A note about the last update date should address concerns about outdated information. Deleting this list would limit Wikipedia’s ability to document the evolution of social media platforms, especially those rising in relevance like Kick.JeanSegura (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we do not make deletion decisions based on what other lists (or articles) exist or do not exist on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that we're looking at this list's notability, not the notability of those other lists; those lists might be notable, or they might not, but the focus of this discussion is just this list. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with you that each list’s notability should be considered individually. However, it's important to note that this list meets the same standards as similar lists, which is why it meets the inclusion criteria based on its own notability. You will find media online that covers kick followers, just as it does for other platforms. Reliable sources such as "NBC News" have show their follower counts and impact. I really think that the notability of this list is okay, as the list is not merely about individual creators but about Kick's social impact. JeanSegura (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia national youth football team

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

I do not believe that the subject of this article satisfies notability guidelines. A cursory search did not turn up reliable independent sources that could be used to improve it. Even looking beyond that, the article in its current state appears to be entirely deserted, consisting mainly of empty tables. It is debatable how relevant this information would be anyway as per WP:NOTDB. ElooB (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ElooB (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Estonian Football Association pages for these U18 U16 U15. I'm not sure why these articles are grouped together as there is no 1 youth team, all of them are different teams. I rather see them seperately. So I'm not gonna argue they have notability in this discussion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElooB: I made it into disam page [4] such as England national youth football team, Belgium national youth football team, Poland national youth football team, Scotland national youth football team, Spain national youth football team, Sweden national youth football team. I say keep it as disam. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pelmeen, and to match similar articles. Giant Snowman 13:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pelmeen.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Kirin Cup Soccer squads

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

We typically don't keep squads from the many invitational or smaller-scale tournaments around the world. I found some precedents for deletion here, here, here and here, and others too I'm sure. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2022 Kirin Cup Soccer. Lâm (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Not worth merging. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merging, as the squad lists are just indiscriminate information. The squad list article clearly fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fawlty Towers cast members

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every actor who has ever been in an episode of a TV series is not encyclopedic content. --wooden superman 11:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 11:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fawlty Towers. Pretty much all this content is already available in the episodes list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Fawlty Towers~~ Delete Since the entire list depends on the index of one source, The Complete Fawlty Towers, this meets the spirit and definition of a copyright violation. And an unlikely search term as characters is more likely than cast members, which the average reader would easily know could be found in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 19:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely search term, Fawlty Towers already lists the episode-specific cast in the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders

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

What's offered in this article's references and external links section is a collection of publications from MLB (primary non-independent source) and baseball-reference.com (a stats database), neither of which count towards notability. Furthermore, most of them don't actually discuss this list topic but are instead being used in a WP:SYNTH manner. These two sources publish some variant of the list, but lack the requisite secondary SIGCOV needed to establish notability. An extensive WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help. I discovered this source from Baseball Almanac; it has a table of random stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with a brief mention of three random unrelated factoids, but no meaningful discussion about this list topic specifically. bb_catchers.tripod.com contains two sentences discussing this list, but the site has no apparent editorial or authorial information, so it's likely WP:SPS. This source contains a footnote with a single sentence (which means it falls short of SIGCOV) mentioning only the first-place entry (which means it fails NLIST). At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. In light of the aforementioned article review and search for sources, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92's proposal at related AfDs. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP lists of career leaders for batting, pitching and baserunning categories (such as hits, wins and stolen bases) are older, generally dating to between 2004 and 2007; the lists of fielding leaders are more recent, generally from around 2019, but are no less valid. Also, the batting, pitching and baserunning lists currently include less information, and are arguably more redundant of other sources; the individual subdivisions by league which have been added to the fielding lists are useful (and factual), as are the notes on the holders of various records over the years. Anyone looking for this info could, I suppose, wade through the data on other sites to find it themselves, but why make that necessary? There used to be annual publications which included the current league records, but I'm not sure any are still being printed, so that info isn't even easy to find anymore; I can't find career single-league records on Baseball-Reference, let alone single-league leaders, so I'm not sure where they'd be available. I don't think there's a WP:SYNTH issue, because no conclusions or inferences are being drawn -it's all simply factual material. MisfitToys (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MisfitToys: None of that proves compliance with WP:NLIST, nor does it rebut the thorough source analysis set forth in the nomination, and I also see multiple arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Can you please justify your keep !vote by providing independent secondary reliable sources that directly discuss this list topic as a group to show notability? Left guide (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa Charge draft picks

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

I am not persuaded that this qualifies under WP:NLIST. There are also only two years here so far. In a few years this will be unmanageable, and doubtless better handled by a category, and conceivably a navigation template for each year, with a link to the next and previous years. Here for discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ice hockey, and Canada. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of New York Rangers draft picks. It's a new league; there have only been two years worth of drafts so far. Let the maintainers of the page determine what's manageable or not. --Mike Vitale 11:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Draft picks are typically very well covered for professional sports leagues and are often considered a defining aspect of a player's career. Additionally, organization draft picks are typically discussed in a fashion that would meet WP:NLIST. I recognize the list isn't very large right now, but I believe it still meets NLIST and it will continue to grow so long as the league doesn't fold. As for manageability, that's certainly not a concern, as we actually have quite a few list of players drafted that make it to featured list status, 7 of which are for NHL team draft histories. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only other place for this would be on the Ottawa Charge article itself, and I can see this list as getting long and unwieldy over time. If the league doesn't last long, then I'd support merging the content, but in the meantime I don't think it's necessary. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge if the league folded. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references largely consist of primary/non-independent sources and stats databases, but more importantly, they also all fail verification or only cover off-topic matters; none actually discuss this record or list. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded dismal results; the best-quality source I could find was this Guinness World record page, but the WP:RSP entry for Guinness World Records says There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Furthermore, it briefly mentions the first-place entry but fails to discuss a group or set of list entries together as required by WP:NLIST. Page 329 of this book offers a sentence discussing the top four entries of this list but since it's published by AuthorHouse, it's an WP:SPS. With all that said, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Also, this is covered by Baseball Almanac and I'd imagine baseball-reference though I haven't seen a direct source. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Are those sources secondary and WP:SIGCOV for this topic though? Mere statistical database entries don't count towards notability; the sources need to provide fleshed out prose and context directly about this list topic. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for a !keep. Just merely pointing out the references that are to be pointed here. Baseball Almanac is considered reliable and covers the statistical aspect. Beyond that, I'd say each record is likely to house some WP:SIGCOV from the player article. However, the grouping may not suffice for deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Well can you please provide more specific usable links (the Baseball Almanac link you supplied comes up as an error without rendering anything meaningful) or quotes of the source material so they can be judged and examined by the community? I'm afraid your argument is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as of the present moment. Notability is demonstrated via evidence of sufficient source material, not the belief or assertion of such. WP:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders is a current example of evidence-based WP:NLIST notability being demonstrated in a similar context (sports stats list). Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it did, let me fix the link. My argument is more like, "watch out". Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Yes, I was already aware of the bundled right-fielder AfD as someone who participated there. I was referring to this Baseball Almanac external link you provided, which incurs a 404-type error. Left guide (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, Left guide. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Is this the Baseball Almanac source you've been alluding to? If so, it unfortunately doesn't contribute towards WP:NLIST for this particular topic. It has a table with a collection of random outfielder double play stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with secondary prose about three random factoids, but nothing about this list topic specifically. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forgot to mention in the nom that the content within the article's two sources don't discuss this list topic at all. They're being used in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion to verify tangential details. And this in the external links section is not secondary or SIGCOV; raw stats tables don't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saer Sene

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

Middle names don't count, so there's only one entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saër Sène per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a redirect makes sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders

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

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT: too narrow. Now if it had included only blonds born in January ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too specific to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - To repeat my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders: There are too many other DP articles. If anything all three OF (LF/RF/CF) DP lists should be merged/redirected to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders. I don't see why RF is targeted over CF or LF. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting here the rationale used for closing the CF AFD:
  - The result was no consensus‎. NLIST states, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." This AfD reflects the present lack of consensus on this wider issue.
- Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can add those to the AfD, I see no problem with merging/redirecting to them. This one was just part of my patrol. Conyo14 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It would probably be a more productive discussion, yes. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Clarifying my !vote now stands at Merge & redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders after all 3 were nom'd. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least partially merge to the outfield double play article. I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable, but double plays by specific position is relevant to the general outfield article. Although maybe limit the specific position lists to 10 or 20 players. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I have updated the AfD to include List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders and List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders. Also pinging original !voters if they want to update their !vote. @BX:, @Clarityfiend:, @Esolo5002:, @Rlendog: Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I agree that the split by position is largely the issue, which is why I support a merge that may allow the list to pass WP:NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: No indication that WP:NLIST is satisfied here, which requires in-depth coverage from independent secondary reliable sources collating an article's list entries together as a group. All three articles fail that standard at present. Left guide (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I oppose any merge or redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders since that page is an equally problematic failure of WP:NLIST that will inevitably be deleted soon anyways. That's just kicking the can down the road and creating more unnecessary administrative and editorial work in the future for no real gain. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and the rest Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92 on this. It's not particularly notable to have the 49th most double plays at your position. If I found this in a records or highlights section of a player page I'd remove it as cherry picked. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches with 100 losses

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

Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources covering this grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. The best I could find is [[5]]. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Side comment that the title might be better as something like "List of college football career ~~wins~~ leaders". Unless it's deemed some magic number in sources, cutoff criteria should rarely be in titles. Per WP:LISTNAME:
Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.
—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: the list you speak of appears to exist at List of college football career coaching wins leaders. Perhaps this one should be merged/redirected into that one. Left guide (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant "List of college football career losses leaders". —Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think loss leaders on its own would be a notable list, but, I'd expect all of the significant loss leaders to already be included in the win list. You don't typically lose for a long long time without getting fired, but mildly successful coaches can hand around a while and rack up some stats. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also rack up a huge number of losses by being a coach for a long time at a small school that's not really focused on football and that can't really afford a higher caliber coach, so they just keep losing season after season but do nothing about it. 129.7.55.20 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Statistics sufficiently pertinent to establishes WP:GNG. Needs improvements and more sources, not deletion. Svartner (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like something that should have more coverage but best I could find to meet WP:GNG was this [6]. Without two more decent sources I can't make an argument for a keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No wide coverage of this grouping, does not appear to meet notability. Drdpw (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN as a topic discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Sources include 247Sports, ESPN, Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Oklahoman, The Macon Telegraph. This pairs well with List of college football career coaching wins leaders as a complementary encycloppedic topic.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe ESPN counts as a fully independent source for sports leagues they have TV contracts with per this comment from an older AfD, so it's likely a WP:COISOURCE, but the other four references presented above seem sufficient for satisfying WP:NLIST. Left guide (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Barboursville, West Virginia

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

A mostly unsourced and thus unverifiable list of non-notable mayors of a "village". Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list seems to be referenced by Ref 1 (HMdb.org), but still this appears to be a village of 4000 people with non-notable mayors. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator and second seem to be conflating the population of Barboursville with the notability of this list. The word "village" doesn't determine notability; populated places have generally been deemed notable, irrespective of their size. Additionally Barboursville is an incorporated municipality under the laws of West Virginia, and under West Virginia Code § 8-1-3 Barboursville has been a "class III city" since 1960, and would have been a "class IV town or village" before that. It was also the county seat from 1813 to 1888. As an incorporated municipality, a list of Barboursville's mayors is appropriate, and could be included in the article about Barboursville, without having to demonstrate their individual notability; here, the list has been split out into its own article, because it is fairly long, covering over two hundred years. As a separate issue, the city's own official publications are not independent, and therefore do not count toward establishing the significance, and thus notability of its individual mayors; but as official government publications they may be considered authoritative as to the names of the persons who held that position and at what points in time. I believe that better sources are available for most or all of the mayors, and will visit the library today to find out. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting Barboursville itself is non-notable. I do on the other hand believe a list of all mayors of a relatively small locality is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list itself meets WP:LISTCRITERIA, the question is whether it should be a separate page or back in the city article. I view these pages as a valid page split (WP:SPLIT) as the content is verifiable, and could be included in the parent article, but because of the size of the content, does not always belong in the parent article. If the information was in the parent article, we would not be having this discussion about notablilty. --Enos733 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I thought the list went back to the beginning, but it only seems to go back to the late 19th century. I did find some materials supporting this list at the public library in Barboursville, but only going back as far as this list does. They're not great sources, but they're published and available for review—anyone can go and check them. At least one was based on the same source listed here: the Barboursville monument with a list of mayors. That's not ideal, but public monuments should probably be treated as official statements by the city, subject to correction using better sources. I'll see about whether any of the other sources make sense to incorporate here. At worst, the list could perhaps be incorporated back into the article about Barboursville, but deletion does not make sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What reason would we ever need a standalone list of utterly non-notable people, regardless of whether it's verifiable? That's stuff for a town website or directory, not a global encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merging as such content is not BALASP -- merely being verifiable does not mean something is due in a page, and especially when this concerns low-profile BLPs (mayorship of a 4000-person village is not high-profile) there is good reason not to include the content. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barboursville under a newly created heading (mayors or politics). The article isn't too long, should it become too long: the list can always be collapsed. It is sourced information. Rolluik (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further support for that merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Warner Robins, Georgia

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

List of mostly unnotable local politicians. Roasted (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). Roasted (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "mostly unnotable local politicians" is not defined, because most of them are still red links. Please see WP:REDLINKS. I think if you look through "Category:Lists of mayors of places in Georgia (U.S. state)" you will find the same un-sourced situation on all of them. And for that matter, it seems to be a trend for most mayoral lists. These are the kinds of lists that are works in progress, and therefore should not be deleted. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks "indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" - few of those mayors seem notable, to be honest. AusLondonder (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you arrive at "few of those mayors seem notable" just by looking at a red link name? — Maile (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally uncommon for mayors of smaller cities to be notable, per WP:NPOL which states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Mayors are frequently deleted at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since all the mayors currently with articles are under PRODs. Roasted (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links to people is prohibited by WP:LISTPEOPLE, see below. Викидим (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid nom. (see Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA) Djflem (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why LISTCRITERIA is important in this case. Problem is not in the method of selection, but in the general approach: the list consists of non-notable people, thus the list violates way more basic WP:LISTPEOPLE. Due to the small-city context, WP:EXEMPT1E does not seem to apply. Викидим (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced list of non-notable local politicians. These lists are frequently deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list itself meets WP:LISTCRITERIA, the question is whether it should be a separate page or back in the city article. I view these pages as a valid page split (WP:SPLIT) as the content is verifiable, and could be included in the parent article, but because of the size of the content, does not always belong in the parent article. If the information was in the parent article, we would not be having this discussion about notablilty. --Enos733 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are zero sources, so WP:V is not here. Looks like zero notable entries, too (blue links look temporary). What exactly is the value of this standalone list? If merged into the article, at least more eyes would be looking at it. --Викидим (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list with zero sources, of apparently non-notable people, is not encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above that LISTCRITERIA is irrelevant. LSC concerns which items can be members of particular list topics, not whether the list itself should exist as a standalone page. LISTPEOPLE is explicit that lists of people should be restricted to notable people unless an exemption applies, and no exemptions exist here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no consensus and disagreement over whether or not this article satisfies list criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzhugh Lee (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS applies. The only legit entries are the general and the vice admiral. Middle names, Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) and Lee Fitzhugh don't count. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just) There are a lot of partial matches, and the see also section may be WP:USEFUL to readers, as well as the 3 entries that are fully valid as this appears to be a dab for Fitzes and Fitzhughes. Not the most important page, but potentially helpful to readers, and nothing to be gained by deletion. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly add the anthroponymy project to the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two entries here (there's no evidence Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) was "Fitzhugh"), so WP:TWODABS applies and this page could and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions