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 Sanskrit authors from lower communities

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

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, Hinduism, and India. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

There's some standing consensus that these lists are not encyclopedic because they lack a SELCRIT and so therefore must always be definitionally WP:SYNTH.

The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidential_firsts is well worth a read as it was a massive back and forth that ended in no consensus. Since then, other articles have narrowly ended in deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_prime_ministerial_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_presidential_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_presidential_firsts

I'm of the view that this kind of article can never ever, in any circumstances, be a good article because it will always be a pile of random information.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no policy based decisions for or against keeping this page, but this being the only one kept and the rest deleted reeks of the Americentrism problems on this website. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have seen book entries and magazine articles organized on this topic. Furthermore, this has been kept before and I am not convinced of the need to abandon that consensus _pbp 14:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There's never going to be 100% agreement on any article, and the editors do a good job of deleting pure trivia. The presidency has evolved over the years and this article shows how. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American writers have and will no doubt continue to list presidential achievements (though I am rather dubious about having a section for George Washington: everything he did was a first!). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating by age

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

All unsourced. Also, why do we even have this? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NLIST. At best, they make a point of the youngest (and maybe oldest) ever, but not every single skater. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews

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

The majority of Jews in Israel fall into this category. I believe this page should be deleted for the same reason outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Ashkenazi Jews due to no encyclopedic value and numerous WP:BLP and Original Research violations that make rescuing this page impossible. Whizkin (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Whizkin (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all participants of the previous AFD: @Alaexis; @Number 57; @Gidonb; @DGtal Whizkin (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR, this feels like a very wikipedia thing to do, however I honestly don't see any encyclopaedic value for such a list. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DGtal (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taunk

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

A surname page, but none its items is Taunk. Book snippets cited simply mention it, no coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Two sources that are just snippets and that too with different spelling "Tank". Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbonavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Valid surname page. These are notable people with potential articles, eg by btranslation from the corresponding text from lt-wiki --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanavičius

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

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valud surname page. --Altenmann >talk 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be valid surname page if it had sourced information about the surname itself, or a list of people with the surname about whom we have information in en.wiki. It fails on both. PamD 07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need sorces, add {cn}, not delete. I easily added a ref after a minute of search. YEs we have info in en-wiki about the people, e.g., [1]. It is normal to have redlinks for persons reasonably notable for future articles. --Altenmann >talk 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of doctors working in the British media

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

While there are, of course, doctors who work in British media, I wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss this as a group. toweli (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, Radio, Television, Health and fitness, and Lists. toweli (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category-ify if that's an option. I BOLDly created Category:Medical doctors in British media. I'm not too keen on Ernest Hart (medical journalist), someone who died in 1898, being listed as 'working' in the present tense. Is it considered 'involved' or anti-consensus for me to add all of the listed to the category I just created? Svampesky (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support conversion to category; better in general and will be much less susceptible to the article being abandoned. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Littleton, Colorado

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

Completely unreferenced list of entirely redlinked or unlinked people. As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list of mayors has to have at least some blue links in it -- it appears from the edit history that a couple of the most recent mayors had articles in the past, but they've all been deleted so that this is now entirely a list of unlinked names. As well, lists still have to be properly referenced just the same as any other article, but this features no referencing at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of the subject area, and better access to sources that would verify the mayors' names and terms, is willing to tackle cleaning it up, but it can't be retained as an unreferenced list with no bluelinks in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Colorado. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a similar Afd. I don't believe their keep arguments are too strong. Its also kind of crazy to realize that this article is 21 years old. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we have many more cases where a list of mayors of a small community has been deleted or merged if it comprised entirely unlinked or redlinked names and cited no referencing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Madison, New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Whitchurch–Stouffville, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Margate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of West Lafayette, Indiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Durham, Ontario, etc. — it's much, much easier to find parallel examples of the list getting either deleted or merged than it is of the list getting kept without referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging to Littleton, Colorado#Government could remove an unnecessary fork and keep the information available. I found a reference for the list as well and I didn't see any mention of any of the mayors being elected to the state legislature in their biographies I found. (In other words, none of the redlinks appear to meet WP:NPOL) TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge is fine assuming the list does not make the main page about the city too long. A stand-alone page is fine too. WP:NLIST does not say that the list must contain notable (blue-linked) entries. What is required is that the subject itself is notable and that the entries are not indiscriminate. That said, there does need to be sourcing. But I think this source verifies the information. --Enos733 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a primary source. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eureka Stockade defenders

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a similar List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Alamo has a much higher significance, and a good proportion of those defenders do have articles. A list of every defender, absent defender and non-combatant caught in the middle is too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you that the Alamo might have more significance to our American readers. But in Australian terms the Eureka Stockade is definitely folkloric. I've seen Wikipedia lists where some of the people wouldn't meet the general notability criteria to qualify for a biographical entry of their own. Some of those names on the List of Alamo defenders do have their own Wikipedia articles. But I just picked about a dozen people from the Alamo list at random and searched Wikipedia for them and nothing else came up. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I'm hoping to do here is help Wikipedia take over from Eurekapedia. And Eurekapedia has a list of Eureka Stockade defenders. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that the Eureka Stockade defenders should have a list of their own if the Alamo defenders also have one. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbiegibbons I leave it up to others as to whether or not there will be a list. The Alamo is different in that we honestly don't know, and may never know, who all was there. All the time, we find new evidence of someone, and also pull someone we listed in error (Talk:List of Alamo defenders). The entire Texas revolution was about slavery. The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, but the white slave owners who moved to Texas, brought their slaves with them. Good luck, and keep doing the good work you do. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eureka Rebellion is a bona fide part of Australian folklore. The article on the rebel war flag the Eureka Flag says the design pattern was a rival to the official Australian national flag twenty years ago before the Eureka Flag started to appear on bumper stickers with racial slogans. And that's the other point I would make. The people at Ballarat Heritage Services are always adding to the body of knowledge as well. If we decide to keep these lists then you can rest assured that as detailed as they are. They're not as detailed as they're going to be. I always hoped the Wikipedia Eureka Rebellion series itself would spur some more research. As good as www.eurekapedia.org is. I want to be given the opportunity to see if wikipedia can do even better. If we can get every article in the series up to good article status then BHS might be willing to donate some or all of their image library to wikimedia. The list of Eureka Stockade defenders is vastly more informative than the one on the Alamo defenders if the truth be known. Some of those obituaries of the Eureka rebels contain some pretty interesting stuff. If the list is going to stand then I do have about ten more sources with additional details that I could cite. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alamo defenders were [nearly] all killed, and a number of them were very famous in their own right before the battle; most of the Eureka Stockade ones weren't. It makes a significant difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Not everybody inside the Alamo died. — Maile (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, compared to the mostly surviving ES defenders. A last stand vs. a not-last stand. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. Maybe there's some other unfixable problem here (e.g. if "The Eureka Encyclopedia" is argued an unreliable source), but "Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article" is not a valid deletion reason - see WP:NLIST, where lists of individually non-notable yet collectively notable groups are explicitly allowed. Article creator makes a decent case that the defenders are notable collectively so this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinout of the Battle of the Eureka Stockade article, which is already on the long side. SnowFire (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems sourced enough; @SnowFire's argument seems reasonable. I question the use of EurekaPedia, which I don't know if it is user-generated? A lot of the defenders are also cited (other than the that) to one particular book, but there are other sources. Certainly has enough coverage to write an article on, anyway. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article stands then we can add direct links to the obituaries from https://trove.nla.gov.au. That should be heaps of sources. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"heaps of sources" ... tell me you're Australian, without telling me you're Australian :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SnowFire. Nothing in WP:NLIST indicates that all subjects of (or a large portion of) the class must be notable for the class to be notable, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors. There is sigcov RS that discusses the class particularly given the subsequent treason trials. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Police, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:

"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be deleted then Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda ^talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Matilda. Bduke (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michigan Wolverines football trainers

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

The article fails WP:NLIST. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the early years of Michigan football, the trainers played an incredibly important role, akin to coaches. Michigan retained some of the outstanding figures in sports to fill the role. E.g., Mike Murphy, Edward Moulton, Keene Fitzpatrick, Alvin Kraenzlein, Stephen Farrell, and Archie Hahn. The list serves a valid navigational role among and between these major figures. Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: "Akin to coaches"; they ARE assistant coaches, and that in itself is not notable enough to garner their standalone list. The information in the article is already in the trainers' standalone articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand the role of trainers, especially in the 19th century. Yes the biographical info is a short form of what’s in each bio, and that’s as it should be — the individual bios are the main repositories and this list serves as an overview and navigation aide. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:NLIST. I could not find anything that discussed Michigan trainers as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any coverage from reliable third party sources discussing this grouping to meet the WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. While the trainers might be individually notable, it doesn't equate to notability as a list. Let'srun (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no indication that this satisfies WP:NLIST as requested by the nomination, namely discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I spent some time searching and came up empty-handed in this endeavor. Left guide (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final note: I know that page views are an argument we're not supposed to make, but this article has been viewed almost 5,000 times in the last nine years and is the only connective tissue we have between such major sports figures as Mike Murphy, Edward Moulton, Keene Fitzpatrick, Alvin Kraenzlein, Stephen Farrell, and Archie Hahn. The votes so far ignore that lists are allowed where they serve a useful navigational function. See WP:NLIST ("Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not seeing such a purpose here but you are welcome to differ. Let'srun (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: *The trainers (with articles) are all linked in the assistant coaches section of each Michigan football season that they worked as an assistant coach in. Assistant coaches are not inherently notable, so the list itself is not inherently notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. If all of the trainers had articles then maybe you would have a point (see WP:NCOLLATH), but lists are not simply for convenience. And lists such as these are not simply for those loose connections, as only Murphy is the only one listed who is most notable specifically for his time at Michigan football. The others did more in other sports such as track and field, or did more at other schools, and their time with Michigan football was simply a footnote as evidenced by their respective entries in the list and their individual articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this as a case where WP:NLIST's "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability" plays a valid role. This is a useful list for organizing information on notable subjects with a clear aim. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

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

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Sweden, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be deleting all of the nation lists on the Template:Guantanamo Bay Detainees? If not, why these particular ones? (I'm likely supporting deletion, just trying to understand the situation.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any list with only one entry should be a redirect to an article on the individual. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the rest should be added to AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay here as WP:NLIST violations, having fewer than a handful doesn't qualify you for a whole list, if the subject is notable bring it up there and if they're not List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is that way. Break out List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay into its own AfD, with over 200 detainees that's a whole separate issue worth examining and per AlexandraAVX should be discussed separately. Bestagon ⬡ 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Belgium, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably neutral between redirect and deletion, but if you want to redirect I'd think the target would be List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Bestagon ⬡ 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: as redirects are cheep. I can't see any reason for separating out detainees by nationality into separate lists as it is just duplicative. When we start getting down to lists which have just one entry it gets especially redundant and would not meet WP:NLIST. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as all covered already by List of Guantanamo Bay detainees which details nationalities and is sortable. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. My own opinion, weighing all of the arguments presented, is to Redirect All but there is not a clear consensus to do this yet so I'll relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [2]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE Re ‘’ List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‘’ Wikipedia articles on individual MPs frequently refer to an individual MPs claim to fame eg being the longest serving MP (Rex Mason), and the parliamentary website itself has a list of “longest serving Members of Parliament” [[ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ]]. There are similar lists for other countries eg List of electoral firsts in Canada and List of electoral firsts in the United Kingdom. Hence I do not see the need for an item by item justification of this or similar lists. Hugo999 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [3] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to delete all "Lists of Firsts?" Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any list (and especially lists of "firsts") should be discussed in reliable sources as a topic AND the criteria must not be indiscriminate. (see this recent discussion). So, this fails NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Fails WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that other "List of electoral firsts in ..." be added to this AfD. I get the trivia argument and think it applies to them all, not just this one. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD is successful I will nominate other similar lists. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The similar lists should be considered together as a group, not one by one, and should include the category Category:Lists of the first women holders of political offices. So are you prepared to resubmit a proposal to delete as a group all the lists you think should be deleted? This is so that people who object to List C being deleted are not told that it has already been discussed for List A and List B without your participation? Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss how to go about deletion of other list articles we can do it on my talk page rather than here. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above the New Zealand Parliament website has a section called

”Longest serving members of Parliament” [ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ] which has sections on Longest serving Members of Parliament – Longest, shortest, oldest, youngest, Maori, Asian, Pacific MPs,
Firsts for women in Parliament including Iriaka Ratana as the first MP to become a mother, Whetu Tirakatene-Sullivan as the first MP to become a mother while Parliament was in session, Jacinda Adern as the first (NZ) Prime Minister to give birth while in office.

Doubtless the Parliamentary staff (Parliamentary Library researchers ) got enquiries from both visitors and other MPs, and wanted a reliable source! Hugo999 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the lists at [4] - this isn't random TRIVIA but is normal statistics of who has served in the legislature, and any cleanup of being discriminate (most of it is) can be performed in editing. NLIST requires sources, this is source-able. SportingFlyer T·C 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deleting are either Trivia or I don’t like it. Objectively, this passes WP:N. There’s an authoritative source, and combine with other sources, constitutes significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only subjective issue is whether this is a valuable list. The other option is a category. A list is better here fir our core readership to see the information in one place, rather than a category of blue links, but it is a matter of opinion. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament is hardly an independent source here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions