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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists of people.

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[edit]

List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Merge with Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame - the parent article is not that detailed except for a detail of how people are elected to it so I don't see any particular reason for there to be a seperate page for inductees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not in favor of deletion at all. I think having all this info on one page is a better approach. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PM for merge requests. Conyo14 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rarely used, this is generally an okay place to have these discussions. A lot more people see it. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14, thank you for the info. I was not aware of WP:PM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This can also be procedurally closed and a merge discussion opened per Conyo14. If this is done, please ping me so I can comment there. However, this is the venue currently open for me to make my !vote. Frank Anchor 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Separate page is not necessary. And given the disfunction of WP:PM for merge requests, I understand using AfD to seek a merge. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants[edit]

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

Irrelevant and random list of pageant contestants has stood unreferenced for going on a decade. (Last referenced version was November 2015). Better to start over, if someone cares to. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there have been recent updates, but unsourced updates about competitions such as Mister Tourism World (which are redlinks) do not engender confidence. Due to the potential of WP:BLP violations, this should be blown up per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any coverage of this specific statistic beyond the list maintained by Baseball-Reference.com ([1]), having searched the internet, Google Books, and Google Scholar. We appear to fall short of WP:LISTN, and this title does not seem to make for an appropriate redirect to any more general article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This title is so oddly specific that it took me a second to figure out what the list even was. This is not a notable topic for a list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, baseball is notorious for keeping extremely specific records. But that doesn't mean every possible statistic meets LISTN, and currently we've identified only a single source covering this statistic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but can we just appreciate the specificity of the title. Like specifically center fielders with double plays is something to really keep track of. Only baseball-reference would have this stat too. I think I feel bad for the author(s) for this likely deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outfield assist leaders are notable, and double play leaders are notable; this seems a worthwhile combination of the two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me why this article is up for deletion? And if someway to make sure that article don't deleted at all, tell me of how to fix the article ASAP so the deletion notice is taken off the article. SO please, ask me because I put alot of sweat and tears into this article and I pray that I know how to fix this problem as quickly as possible. Thank you and good day. BaseballFanatic1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I and the various editors who have !voted delete have noted, you need to provide sources that demonstrate that this topic meets WP:LISTN. So, multiple reliable sources (both lists and prose coverage would be considered, although prose is definitely better) that enumerate or discuss this specific statistic. Currently only one has been identified, baseball-reference.com _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying this meets WP:LISTN, but there is also Statmuse and Baseball Almanac - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders is a notable group (have not researched myself) but not for position-specific stats. I cannot confirm though. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This topic fails to have the necessary sources discussing this grouping, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. While it is clear that the creator put a lot of work into this article, it is not suitable for wikipedia. I'd encourage them to WP:TRYANOTHER. Let'srun (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an unfortunate can of worms you are opening up here. Obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, namely List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a first baseman leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a second baseman leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a third baseman leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Always unfortunate to see volunteer time wasted. I personally see the value of it. Hope to hear that RS sources can be provided. Best, - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMO not really fair that this article is being targeted. There is also List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a left fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career fielding errors as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a left fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career games played as a left fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career games played as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career games played as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a left fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a right fielder leaders and so on... all of which seem to have the same possible WP:LISTN problems. What makes this set different from those? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
possible Keep (TBD) per WP:TRAINWRECK, we all know there are thousands and thousands of stat articles that possibly suffer from the same exact problem but people recognize their encyclopedic value. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, it's not like the article is outdated... the creator of the article is actively updating it. Look forward to everyone's feedback. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the nom wants to go one by one? Mass nomination could be messy. Conyo14 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. I'm not sure about the subject matter but considering how many articles of similar types that exist it doesnt make sense to delete this particular one. Though i couldnt really understand if this was for hitting into a double play (which isnt really fielding position specific) or turning double plays as a fielder... Probably needs some actual discussion on the project page about these pages.. maybe the title should be List of Major League Baseball career double plays turned as a center fielder leaders Spanneraol (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These should be "List of Major League Baseball career leaders in double plays as a center fielder" maybe. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep 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 CF is targeted over RF or LF. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment radio is not TV.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is not possible for anyone to record how many records of a particular artist have been sold nationally or internationally. Now even if we were to mention only what WP:RSs have said, then this list would be among those articles that fail that requirement the most.

This list is nothing but a WP:LISTCRUFT. This list has been probematic to core. Various RfC have been carried out but there has been no solution for this list.[2][3]

As noted by the reliable sources, Elvis Presley, The Beatles are widely regarded to have sold more than 1 billion records,[4][5] while Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records.[6] However, this page is evidently misrepresenting their figures.

This list does not make mention of Bing Crosby who is known to have sold over 900 million records.[7] Could it be because Crosby does not have enough fans who are eager to impose their POV on this page? That appears to be biggest factor behind the names (at least the top ones) found on this list.

Not just that, but this list does not even list any artists from the most populated countries like India and China where some artists have clearly sold more than 200 million records such as A. R. Rahman,[8] Wei Wei [9] and more.

It would make more sense to have this list deleted instead of wasting any more time on it. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Hundreds of Wikipedia articles mention total sales figures of music artists and bands, so it can be asserted that the existence itself of this List is more than coherent. Apart from that, it contains very valuable information for the reader, such as the total amount of certified sales of each artist/band, with numerical (ergo, objective) data from multiple music certification systems of different countries/markets.
The claimed sales figures, even if they are estimates, are supported by RS from news organizations (as stipulated in the List's guidelines). It is true that there are sources that claim the figure of 1 billion records for The Beatles [10], Jackson [11] and Presley [12], but there has been a consensus for years not to include such high figures as they were considered inflated.

In those two RfCs mentioned above, the total deletion of the List was never considered, but rather had the objective of improving it, especially the last one, which modified the methodology previously used in the List, removing its percentage-based fabricated requirements (which were defended by the user Harout72, who incurred in WP:OWNERSHIP and decided to cease his activity on Wikipedia when he saw that the methodology he defended was going to be changed). These changes, results of a voting, make it now possible to include artists like A. R. Rahman or Wei Wei. It is true that perhaps it should have been done earlier, but there is certainly a consensus to do so. Indeed, you can see on the List's Talk page that we have been discussing the inclusion of these artists this week.
Salvabl (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct

Apple Corps, the record company that owns the Beatles stated the group had sold 600 million records which predated this article as they were listed at 1 billion at the time.

"Apple Corps Ltd. was founded by The Beatles in 1968 to look after the group’s own affairs. The London-based company has administered the catalogue of The Beatles releases of the 1960s that have sold to date more than 600 million records, tape sand CDs." [13][14][15]

For Elvis Presley, his record company Universal Music Group states that he has sold 500 million records to date "Widely acclaimed as the best-selling solo music artist of all time, Presley has sold more than 500 million records and holds the distinction for most songs charting on Billboard's Top 40 with 114 hits". [16][17]

For Michael Jackson, Sony Music Group stated he had sold 750 million records around the time the Beatles were claimed to have sold 600 million records [18][19]

This page as such is largely accurate barring a few outdated references. Never17 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: there's literally no reason to delete this article. We already reached a consensus from various editors to improve the page. Also Elvis Presley is claimed to have sold 500 million records Reuters (2022) - 500 Million , along with The Beatles NME (2024) - 500 Million and Michael Jackson Yahoo (2024) - 500 Million. This article is also far more reliable than the list of best selling authors page and generally one of the most well put together on the website and has been cited by Guinness World Records and various other media outlets
Never17 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an article not yet being "good enough" is not alone reason to delete it. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above, the article just needs better sourcing and the topic has many reputable sources on it already. Sharrdx (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the credibility factor is of utmost importance. It is as you stated problematic. If readers dispute the validity of this list in any format, then we have a problem, for we have no credibility. You mentioned Bing Crosby? Since 1926 and beyond, it is believed that yes, as you stated, that he may have reached that astronomical figure of what 900 million? and yet, where is he on the list? Where is Nana Mouskouri? Who sings in multiple languages and most importantly, according to an extensive number of sources she has sold over 350 million albums worldwide, and globally speaking, she is considered the best-selling female artist of all time. She is also nowhere to be found on this list. Moreover, other entertainers who I have mentioned in the past who are nonexistent in this list/article are Rocio Dúrcal, Rocio Jurado, Charles Aznavour, Roberto Carlos among the notables, who are not accorded in unit sales and are erroneously missing. All these artists have sold millions of units internationally. Also, for improvement purposes are some of the record claims, which are also dubious. Most notably, Julio Iglesias who in just about all websites and reputed reliable global sources establish him in the echelons of 300 million records sold globally and not the 150 million claimed by the Wikipedia article. I could go on and on with example after example stating without reservation that yes, we perhaps have a credibility problem. However, we can make adjustments and improve these omissions.

Case in point: there are other entertainers' who are also European descent and should never be omitted from this list or any list, such as the legendary Spanish singers (Raphael and Camilo Sesto), but for reasons unbeknownst to many, there are not. Furthermore, add to this credibility problem the Elvis Presley and Beatles factor; Without question and with respect to those who state that their sales are inflated, they are just too many sources being indicative that these two acts have easily surpassed the billion mark in sales. So, with all these examples that are obviously flawed, do I think that this Wikipedia list/article should be eradicated or faced deletion? No!! No!! No!! we must work to improve it. We have knowledgeable contributors previously mentioned who can make the proper adjustments and corrections to this list/article so it can be the very best it can be, to the perfected core. I for one, believe in the collaborations and countless contributions of these very capable writers/editors and users who I have previously mentioned in the past. In closing, I share the sentiments of these users and contributors who want to keep it. Let us not delete this article for not being good enough but improve on it so it could be more than just good enough. It could be the envy of all other website articles, due to its authenticity and factuality. Let's make it work!! Victor0327 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely a listcruft and is used for POV pushing. I don't see a List of best selling authors. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of best-selling fiction authors 170.203.201.93 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page has numerous inflated and questionable inclusions like William Shakespeare selling 4 billion books (how can you even prove that?) Or Agatha Christie selling 2 billion books, completely unreliable.

Now compare that to this, it's fairly easy to prove most of the numbers provided based on the individual claimed sales figures for each of their releases. Nothing is inflated Never17 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already said above. Breaktheicees (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per all the reasons stated above by multiple users. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give ample coverage of the bestselling musicians, this something notable they mention. You can use the talk page to discuss any editing that needs to be done if you believe someone should be added or information is outdated. Dream Focus 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like all of the objections in the nomination statement can be overcome with editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is doubt over the list that it is being used simply for promoting particular fans' POV. The main articles of these artists already have details on how many records they have sold. I don't see why this list is needed. desmay (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you believe its needed or not is irrelevant. WP:NOTNEEDED. And its not just fans, many people are simply curious, which is why in the past 90 days, it has had 543,364 pageviews. Dream Focus 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media quite literally uses this page all of the time when mentioning popular music acts, they will always quote Wikipedia's sales figures for the artist in question. It makes no sense to get rid of this page. There are minor issues with it, but it's absolutely useful and generally very well put together Never17 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: We need a best-selling list so avid music lovers, musical pundits and historians can use this list/page as a form of reference registry. Moreover, Wikipedia has references on an uncountable number of historical figures and subjects of study, for educational purposes, as an example, the lives of enlightened thinkers "Voltaire" and "Isaac Newton"; It also catapults into the lives of musical revolutionaries such as Elvis, Michael Jackson and The Beatles. This page could be used as a further intellectual study delving into a subject matter which many people are obviously interested in. The editors and contributors will make the right adjustments to make this list a factual coherent and cohesive one. Furthermore, and to alleviate the tensions among some contributors, POV pushing in pursuing an agenda based on fandom to any particular artist will be eradicated. We cannot promote "particular fans" POV as contributor desmay has stated. This shall not be an Elvis, Michael Jackson or Beatle fan page; but a truthful, unbiased, and impartial directory based on fact and intertwined with reputable reliable sources. As previously stated, the hard-working contributors and editor/writers for this best-selling list/article will make it work. Victor0327 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anybody who is saying that this fancruft can be improved with writing is simply not addressing the fact that this article has been impossible to fix because of its use as a fancruft. Wikipedia is not for that purpose. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most are in favor of keeping this article, we've had past attempts at trying to delete the article from fans who were upset about it and it's always been overruled. Never17 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per reasons stated above. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[20]] (1/3), [[21]] (2/3), [[22]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 South African Touring Car Championship[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Article is completely unsourced and barely has any content. Also, context is insufficient and leaves a lot to be desired. Editor has created several of these articles, which have only been tagged as "unsourced". I suggest returning to draftspace so it can be improved there. No objection to deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article needs work (a lot of it) before it is ready for the mainspace, however the information included can be verified in a number of secondary sources, even if refs aren't currently included. And while I acknowledge its prematurely been moved to the mainspace, based on the date stamps this AfD was initiated within a few hours of the article's creation. There is a reasonable potential that it can be improved. For those reasons I'm unwilling to !vote delete at this stage. Dfadden (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBS commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, staff rosters and announcements, some being nothing more than a guide; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:LISTN appears to be met with the 4th source in the article, combined with [[23]] and [[24]] describing the commentators as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As of now, about 43 sources have just been added. The hosts section and the 1998 Winter Olympics section as for intents and purposes been extensively covered and referenced, as well as the 1960 Winter Games. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main CBS Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom, I found the same sources as Let'sRun, but they mirror a WP:ROUTINE news source/press release than significant coverage, plus the rest of the list is just WP:OR anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on CBS on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found only this so far [25]. So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should as a secondary option, be merged with the main CBC Olympic broadcasts article. Otherwise, a lot of great effort has hopefully recently been made to provide better context and information (there are now, about 60 references that have been added) behind the extensive history of CBC's Olympic Games coverage in Canada dating back to the early 1960s and to make it less "bare bones" looking. Here's some additional information on CBC's Olympic telecasts of recent times: Steve Armitage retires after 50-plus years calling Olympics and more for CBC, Famed CBC announcer Steve Armitage will miss Rio Olympics over heart problems, CBC’s Devin Heroux shares how he won’t be going to Beijing after December positive COVID test, illustrating wider media concerns, With Canada’s women’s curling team eliminated from Olympic medal contention, Canadian Twitter is upset…at the CBC’s Colleen Jones?, Support pours in for CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, who’s still hard on himself, VIDEO: CBC announcer mixes up Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte during 200 IM Final, CBC hot mic catches swimming analyst saying 14-year-old “died like a pig”. Also from the CBC Media Centre, CBC'S TOKYO 2020 BROADCAST TEAM, CBC'S OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BEIJING 2022 .... A "full" list of CBC's television personalities can be found here. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources; the first three sources are about the announcers, the one about Canada’s women’s curling team (source 4) are about the team, the other three about the games itself and the last two are WP:PRIMARY. Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste rationale, no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuse me of a copy/paste rationale, I have made a WP:BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on TNT commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 (talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

List of long marriages[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is basically original research. BoldGnome (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of this is original research? It doesn't copy a list someone else has made, but there is nothing here that draws an unsupported conclusion or is unverified synthesis. It's quite well objectively sourced. Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. -Louisana (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note for now that it's perfectly normal to set a threshold for inclusion that keeps the list to a reasonable size. No source is needed to justify the 80-year threshold. I mean, there's nothing at List of largest power stations in the United States that sets 1,500 MW "as an appropriate lower bound". Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up.DrewieStewie (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft[edit]

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

No evidence that this grouping meets WP:NLIST, the article is just a straight copy of the single database source. Can at most be merged to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football if this is deemed of some importance after all. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 420#DraftHistory.com, there are concerns about the source anyway, so new creations based on this source should probably be stopped. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Education, American football, and Mississippi. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources in regards to Delta State football players being drafted ([26], [27], [28]), though I agree that a lot of the lists should be expanded upon (which myself and a lot of others are very much trying to work on), and turned into FL's. In regards to this list, I would not be completely opposed to a merge/redirect, but for now I just view it as a Stub. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's required for list notability is reliable secondary sources doscussing the grouping, not the members of the group. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary sources. The sources cited here along with the one in the article are all primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LISTN asks that "Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft" be discussed significantly in IRS as a topic in itself; separate sources on individual Statesmen in the draft are not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge largely per nom; the sources from KingSkyLord are machine-generated. There is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument based on articles in Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team, but many of those articles can/should also be deleted or merged. That said, I see no reasons this information couldn't be included at Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have a particular stance on this, but I thought I'd mention that everything from the source in question can be easily replaced with links to Pro-Football-Reference.com. This link verifies the content in the article, but it of course does not provide any SIGCOV for the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, there is none. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to ESPN College Basketball#Personalities with only the most notable announcers on that list. The article on its own is good for the fandom, it is otherwise WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[29]], [[30]], [[31]], [[32] and [[33]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and the ESPN now redirects to the main page, neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN since as the nom notes as the individuals listed here are not covered as a group in secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with any sources to improve the article. Let'srun (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added to this particular article at this very moment to further strengthen its notability. This is a work in progress of course, but at the very least, take into consideration, merging the this article with the main College Basketball on ABC article as a secondary option instead of out and out junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to College Basketball on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. This article is WP:LISTCRUFT with mainly WP:ROUTINE sourcing or WP:BLOG posts, fit for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular AFD was put into place, over 20 sources have been added. Of course, there could and should be more, but naturally, 20 is a huge leap and jump from the five that was initially there. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the addition of some reliable sourcing though I still feel as a list, it is not covered under WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A few things here: I want to quickly address some of the arguments presented by the nominator. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that relates to current and upcoming events/programming, so I wouldn't really consider this to be applicable here as it is a combination of past and present television personalities. From a spot check of individuals on the list, standalone articles about the subjects included on this list are notable and meet WP:NBIO. Of course, this does not inherently make the list itself notable, especially one that is standalone. Lists (not necessarily standalone) of this type have held water before (quick examples would include NBC evening news anchors and ABC evening news anchors) with the same rationale that we tend retain lists of notable persons that have a notable trait in common. This goes beyond being simply an indiscriminate database, but is a significant compilation of an important aspect of the underlying subject, in this case, the television program College Basketball on ABC. As a result, deletion altogether would be a disservice the extent of knowledge one can gain regarding the television program. Regardless of the numerous sources added since time of nomination, I concur with the nominator that this article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NLIST for a standalone list. To retain the inline citations, per WP:AOAL, combined with the above, merging this list as suggested by Conyo14 (talk · contribs) seems be the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and American football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with sourcing from [34], [35] and [36]. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are a mix of WP:ROUTINE or not applicable to the article. They are good to add to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the reasons given by the original nominator and other delete voter above. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

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

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [37] (paywalled so can't review) and [38], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?

PoisonHK _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.

Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.

The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) ^[ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Serves an informative purpose, seems to have decent coverage Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others, particularly Alexis Coutinho. Needs some improvement but shouldn't be deleted Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article serves a historical purpose Salfanto (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep. Per nominator, there is no coverage of this topic as a group, only individual instances. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also say that there are several other lists for other countries that should likely also be deleted unless good sources are found for those countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. The fact this is simply a list, not an in-depth article, also hobbles this entry.TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST, sources do not show there is WP:SIRS discussing this as a group. List contains only non-notable entries (one exception), serves no purpose per WP:CLN. Keep votes above are ILIKEIT and provide no sources showing this had been discussed as a group or guidelines showing why the should be kept. // Timothy :: talk 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST, and as a content fork of List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I agree with Liz that there is not a lot of policy-based rationale on either side here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not WP:LISTCRUFT, has enough RS, and serves a historical purpose. Florificapis (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only arguments that would make this not WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be crossing into WP:NOTMEMORIAL territory. The basic problem I have with the list is that lists of victims for tragedies like wars and genocides are much too long to be made into articles consistently. We can't accept articles that are just millions and millions of names (as a "list of Jews killed during the holocaust) would be, and so we also shouldn't accept articles just because they're shorter. The only thing that makes American deaths notable in a way that Ukrainian deaths aren't is the fact that there is less of them? I think that's a repugnant conclusion to reach, and so the whole idea should be tossed in the trash. BrigadierG (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is like the lists of 9/11 victims that pop up every so often in AfD; most of these people aren't otherwise notable. Looking at the list even 10 yrs from now, most still won't be notable. NOTMEMORIAL applies. To be blunt, many people pass away in tragedies like this event and as in 9/11, most aren't notable 10 or 20 yrs later; having a list of xyz that passed away doesn't serve any purpose other than as a memorial. The only individuals looking at Brendon Bowersox as an example in 20 yrs are likely to be family members or perhaps a very small group of historians. To the broader public, he would simply be another individual that passed away, who's name you can switch with any other from the list and it wouldn't make any difference for notability. Not to belittle any of these individuals or their contributions, but not everyone that passes away in a conflict needs a wikipedia article or even to be listed in a long list of otherwise non-notable people. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to a title along the lines of Military involvement of Americans in the Russo-Ukrainian War, and do the same for other articles along these lines in Category:Russo-Ukrainian War casualties. I am wary of the reasoning that compelled two relists of a discussion with a better than 2-1 ratio of "keep" !votes, at least some of which have policy-based rationales in the notability of the group as a group. However, since there is some additional context provided in the article, moving to a broader title would correct the scope from the narrower casualty list. BD2412 T 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the soldiers killed in the conflict were current US army servicemen, they were veterans who chose to fight in Ukraine, meaning that the military involvement of Americans would make it an entirely separate article in its own right. Something worth exploring/expanding separately. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title does not say "U.S. military involvement", just "Military involvement by Americans", which the people listed were. BD2412 T 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Two out of 50+ people listed that do meet notability requirements could perhaps be mentioned in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War or a similar article. All but one 'keep' argument are simply WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. – Primium (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War: There are currently seven articles of the form, "List of <nationality> killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" for foreign causualties fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. There are zero such articles for foreign causualties fighting alongside Russian forces, despite there being just as much such casualties, from just as many different countries. It's hard not to see the systematic bias here as some form of memorial. And of the hundreds listed in the lists we have, a grand total of two people are notable enough to have an article about them. The "historically important" argument voiced by the Keep side is a good reason for creating a primary source. That is not what we do here. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]