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 mahoran writers

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

Unreliable sources, and nearly all of the individuals on this list are not notable. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Lists of people, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Lacrosse Records

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

Article has been previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A10 as a duplicate article of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. The article re-created again by the same creator in the exact same state it was in prior to deletion (including apparently the CSD#A10 tag, which has been in the article since the very first edit). The creator then contested the CSD that they themselves nominated the article for.

At first glance the content of the article appears to be all duplicated, but looking closely there are some very slight differences in the content of the tables. It seems that this list is supposed to be a more general list of all college lacrosse records, while the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records is only for records that occurred under the NCAA - but obviously there is significant overlap.

If the additions do indeed turn out to be notable per WP:NLIST, then the question should be whether we need an article that is almost a duplicate, or if the scope of the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records should be expanded to allow inclusion of the new information. RachelTensions (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the article title currently does not follow WP:AT conventions and the whole lead paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic manner.RachelTensions (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A bit of history first: I moved the first version of this to List of college lacrosse records, and only then noticed that it was nearly identical to NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records, with some unsourced commentary added. Article creator then copied and pasted it back to the current title, so I nominated both for speedy A10. Much shouting followed from creator about "hated Wikipedia law-obsessed editors" on the talk pages, and "why can't you just leave the GD article alone", etc. I offered to draftify it, and was ignored.

Anyway. It's presently still a CFORK of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. College lacrosse is played outside of North America though. A single article for all NCAA records alone would breach WP:Article size, and an article that also included records for college lacrosse in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. would be even bigger. Keeping the records in separate articles will be just fine, perhaps with a template to link them all. I'm happy to provide and maintain the template. Wikishovel (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlético Mineiro transfers 2011

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

All of these lists do not pass WP:SALAT as they are too specific and most are already in their club season's article. Club specific youth-to-first team moves are not notable enough to be stand-alone lists. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the club season article where applicable, such as 2011 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season#Transfers, delete the rest (i.e. those without season articles) as overly specific list topics. Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of the "Categories of Base" ones. Strange and unprecedented topic. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see season pages, either merge into transfer pages or season pages, if not then I don't see any other alternative other than deletion. It would be lost data from wikipedia then. Transfers can be notable, but this is not how we should handle the data. This is down to either kill or keep. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I usually advise against such bulk nominations, but these types of articles are inherently non-notable, at most we have a season article. No point redirecting as the search term is improbable. Giant Snowman 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – With the articles corresponding to club seasons (ex List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo transfers 2009 → 2009 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season). I also support delete for the List of Flamengo Categories of Base transfers 2010 and List of Flamengo Categories of Base transfers 2011. Svartner (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Southern University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Southern University

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

Completely unsourced list of presidents, if content is with keeping it could easily be accommodated at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Lists of people, and Louisiana. AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Southern University. Southern University is obviously notable, but I don't think the list of presidents warrants its own article. Best to merge it into the university's article. Adding sources shouldn't be too hard; I've already found 2 independent sources talking about presidents of the university just from a quick Google.
2601:246:5C80:65F0:8AE3:9A61:23A4:FB45 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It doesn't have the independent coverage as a general topic to convince me of WP:NLIST, and it's only a dozen lines of tabular content; it could easily be merged into the main article without causing significant balance issues. An alternative possibility might be to split off History of Southern University as a separate article and include the presidency there, but currently the sourcing of the history section of the main article is so poor that I don't think it can support a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best way to deal with this, for other schools this is the best way forward. I understand why someone would make this but still it's not really notable on it's own. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doesn't have stand alone notability as a list. Pinguinn 🐧 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders

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

This list is almost exclusively sourced to official Longhorns Baseball materials, principally its 2023 fact book There is no evidence that independent, secondary sources discuss Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders as a defined group; as a result, this subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: There's a 17-page chapter of this book (pages 27–43) dedicated to Texas Longhorns baseball with some statistical data, but it's a lot of coverage to wade through to see if there's anything that can help establish notability for this topic. Left guide (talk) 21:05, 30 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!} 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions