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

Harry Josh

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, while the creator made a list of the Filmography, but have not cited the WP:RS to support it. I searched about the subject on google but got nothing that can establish notability. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, India, and Chhattisgarh. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:NACTOR as an Indian, I know that they have worked in many popular movies listed in the filmography pass.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S-Aura 'as an Indian'? does every Indian pass WP:NACTOR? Can you pls cite some reliable sources in the article? Taabii (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S-Aura obviously refers to him/herself being Indian. :D -Mushy Yank. 16:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to say that I have personally seen him in many movies as an india viewpoint, but I am trying to find better sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:NACTOR because he has played a significant role in a popular movie’s but need more WP:RS. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More than half of the films in the subject's filmography do not list him in the cast section or place him far down in the cast hierarchy indicating that he would not have had a significant role, so he fails NACTOR. Fails GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV about this BLP in reliable independent sources, ultimately leaving us with nothing to write about. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family

AfDs for this article:

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

I am revisiting this article as part of a failed bundled nomination of Filipino family articles created by User:Carl Francis. Since its creation, it is nothing more than a genealogy of the Muhlach family. In fact, it doesn't even try to explain the family's significance or importance. The "List of members" section contains a family tree that is mostly based on a diagram created by ABS-CBN. I suspect that original research or synthesis might be involved during the tree's creation, although I am not sure. Other than the family tree, there's only a very short lead section and a couple of references. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Lists of people, and Actors and filmmakers. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I suggested a Close during the last discussion per WP:TRAINWRECK, I do agree with the nom's reasoning on this particular article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTGENEALOGY states that, "family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." But this article functions merely as a family tree presentation and fails to demonstrate the notability or significance of the Muhlach family at least in a broader sense. This article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is full of OR and tagged as such for 13 years now. Not every single nickname need be included in this list. If a nickname is legit, it belongs in the player's article. "Mr. October" is a well documented nickname; "the Milkman" is not. An alternative to deletion would be to cull the list dramatically and merge/redirect to List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball. Rgrds. -- BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think it is WP:OR - almost every nickname has a source, and the fact there are published books on the topic (in the article) means it's probably a notable list. It is in desperate need of cleanup, though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of junk in this article. Several folks on here like Arky Vaughan and Satchel Paige who used a nickname from childhood. These are not "baseball nicknames", they're just the names they went by. Elsewhere only names extensively used should be included, not just any appellation. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. There is clearly sourcing of these names as group. A quick Google search found [1], [2], [3]. That being said, the article is in pretty bad shape. A draftify to try to clean it up is not something I would oppose. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe draftify is a practical option if the article is much older than 90 days, per WP:DRAFTNO and the RfC for it. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over that RFC, it seems to me that it would allow a draftify if there was consensus at AFD. You just shouldn't make the move to an article over 90 days old without consensus first. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be gained from draftifying the article, though - draftification is mostly used when notability hasn't quite been shown, whereas this is a notable list which has turned into a monster. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has potential, but needs additional refs to verify some nicknames, as well as an update to players listed (i.e. those who have retired or since elected to the HofF). A possible renaming to something like List of Major League Baseball player nicknames may also make sense. Nearly all players listed have played in the MLB at some point, and the history of the Negro leagues (i.e. John Jordan O'Neil) has been incorporate into MLB record-books and history in recent years. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, also think that this baseball article is way too large (150,000 characters) to merge into List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball, and don't see clean up the list to decrease the size significantly. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of baseball nicknames is notable, having been covered in multiple reliable sources. Indeed, there are several entire books dedicated to the subject. E.g., here. If there are entries that are not sourced, they should be tagged for sourcing (and delected if no sourcing is added after a reasonable time period). But the fact that the article needs cleanup is no a reason to delete. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning this up is not a huge task if everyone chips in. I went ahead and cleaned up the "Detroit Tigers" section (here) with just a few minutes effort, removing questionable items and sourcing the others. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same cleanup now completed for Washington Nationals. See diff. Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the Rays and Blue Jays and made them tables. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also tablefied Arizona, Atlanta, and Texas. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With improvements spurred by this AfD, the article now has over 400 in-line citations, making it one of the most heavily cited articles within the scope of the Baseball Wikiproject. Further cleanup is needed, but per my comments above, the need for further cleanup is not a sufficient reason to delete. Nor is merging a desirable outcome, as baseball has a long tradition through the 19th, 20th and 21st century with the copious and colorful use of nicknames, such that this large volume of material is best treated as a stand-alone list separate from other sports. I do believe that a better organizational structure may be desirable (team-by-team may lead to unnecessary duplication), but that can be discussed at the article's talk page. (Alphabetical by player's last name may make sense. For common nicknames, e.g., "Dutch", "Doc", "Heinie", "Bud"/"Buddy", "Whitey", "Chick", "Kid", "Pop", "Red", "Rube", "Lefty", "Chief", a separate chronicling of those may also be desirable.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, [4], [5], [6]. The set is notable. Also, AfD is not cleanup. However, the list needs to cut down the OR or even the nicknames that do not have sources. Conyo14 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page requires WP:TNT but I do not believe that deletion is the way to achieve that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly can be cleaned up but, on the whole, its well referenced. Also don't think merging is a good idea since, even if it is cut down, it will likely still be far too large to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My intention was not to use AfD as a method of cleanup. Rather, this article is so completely unwieldy that it is a burden to read. My intention was to dramatically pare it down and merge it. As cleanup seems to be the better route, consider the nom withdrawn. I will join the cleanup at the talk page later this weekend when I have time. Much thanks to Cbl62 and others for looking at this. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of governor general of Belize

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

This page includes a list of non-notable spouses, who do not have their own pages, and is already included in their notable spouses page. Delete as per WP:NINI. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in contrast to other pages such as Spouse of the governor-general of Australia and Spouse of the prime minister of Canada wherein the spouses themselves are notable, and the page is reliably sourced as such. TiggerJay (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list does not meet the general notability guidelines. I can't find sources with significant coverage of any spouses of governors-general, and I have yet to find any independent reliable source discussing this position as a group (which would be required by the stand-alone list notability guideline). I don't think this needs to be merged to Governor-General of Belize because none of the individuals are notable. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it has clear analogies to the spouses of other heads of state, the difference here is one of documentation. There's just no mention of this position in any of the sources on the politics and constitution of Belize that I have looked at so far, not even looking at older sources that might say "wife" or sources that might cover (for example) Norma Young by name. This does not appear to be a subject documented at all outwith that 1 WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilletsMauves^€500 13:10, 29 January 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berger (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:2DABS and WP:PARTIAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete as written. I find no instances of other confusingly similar names. BD2412 T 02:47, 30 January 2025 (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.

List of classical music composers by era

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

The long list uses no sources thus violating WP:V and has no inclusion criteria, essentially, the composers are chosen arbitrarily, thus going against WP:LISTCRITERIA. On top of it, the list is practically unusable, as the content is not searchable, so it is not possible to locate a composer unless one knows the dates of his life - but with this knowledge there is little use for a timeline. A reader of this AfD might try, for example to locate Cesar Cui as an exercise. The same Cesar Cui was part of The Five, but it is almost impossible to decipher from the chosen way of representation, as the pieces of timeline are split arbitrarily, thus creating false impression of periodic composers' mass extinctions, like the one in 1610 (section "Renaissance era"). As a result, The Five's lives are literally cut into pieces. We already have Lists of composers#Western classical period that are way more readable, so an issue of WP:CFORK also pops up. Викидим (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:WDAFD. Reason: WP:SNOW due to little support. --Викидим (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects to Lists of composers#Era have been reverted several times. Noting there has been discussion about how the timeline has limited functionality. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it had sources, this thing would still be an unencyclopedic mess. That and the impossibility of imposing inclusion criteria make deletion the only possible choice. I suppose such a chart could possibly be used in a much more limited way, say among a group of composers for whom inclusion criteria can be established, like The Five or Les Six. But even so, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. As it stands, on top of the reasons given by nominator, this would still qualify for deletion according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a list of composers by 'timeline' and this was my first glance. I understand the reasons to delete, but the colors make for ease of use. What do you recommend in stead? Rcpeace (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been around forever, has had over 2 million views in less than a decade, so some people must find it useful. Unusually for a list, all the entries have linked articles, so references are very easily found. I'm not impressed by the other arguments in the nom, and would like to hear how deletion would actually improve the encyclopedia. Probably its a good thing to recognise Cesar Cui's distinct individuality for a change. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar Cui came into discussion in a trivial way: I had earnestly tried to search for him, and found the list unusable. One can try their favorite composer, or a random one. Викидим (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's not there. He's a very minor figure (all but unknown in the Anglosphere), and probably shouldn't be - the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive. That's no reason to delete the thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two funny things here are: (1) Russian The Five (just like French Les Six) is an important part of the Western musical culture, so Cui is never left off the important composer's lists (even though he is likely to be the weakest one of the Five, a long period of rubbing shoulders with Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov resulted in some of their gold dust rubbing onto him as well). He is therefore present in these diagrams, naturally. (2) Your (and initially mine) inability to find Cui in this mishmash of colored graphs, with no sorting or search capabilities, highlights my issue with this article: graphics is only useful if it is easier to read than plain text. This one isn't easy to read at all.

I am not denying the usefulness (and potential WP:verifiability) of the list of composers, graphic timelines, horizontal colored bars with composer's name on them. I have very limited, but IMHO grave issues with the particular way of presenting composers chosen in this article: for starters, as we both now know, there is no easy way to establish if a particular composer is in or out. Therefore, even if a WP:RS for this particular list can be found (I very much doubt it), WP:V is practically impossible due to the chosen way of presentation. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be the job of categories. We don't need separate articles for this. Agletarang (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move: We could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers, so it wouldn't be WP:CIRC if it's in the same article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor662: Your initial comment is difficult to interpret. What do you mean by "we could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers"? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:VA, specifically Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music. This VA palcement sort of thing was suggested to me in the past for a different timeline. Does this clarify? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Are you suggesting that the article only include composers whose articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that way it's more objective. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a direct relationship between these two lists : the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Medieval and Renaissance section contains 26 names, while in the article being discussed the "Medieval" section contain 50 names, and "Renaissance" 62. With three overlapping entries, there is an apparent grand total of 109 (note that counting was done manually (there seems to be no easy way to quickly establish the precise count), so I may be of by 1 or 2. Incidentally, if we can agree on much shorter lists, the issue of WP:V becomes much easier to solve, finding multiple lists of about 100 influential composers of all times in the literature is trivial (off-topic: these short lists will not include an entry on Cui - but will mention him). Викидим (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you in favor or against this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two votes from me right at the top. By now, I had withdrawn my own nomination. Викидим (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve upon by adding more text. Someone went through a lot of work to create those charts. Would be a damn shame to delete it. Many incoming links would go broken too. I for one happen to find it very entertaining and educational. -- œ^™ 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:HARDWORK argument. Come on. The backlinks can be fixed easily too. – The Grid (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so what. That page lists every argument every heard in a deletion discussion. Doesn't make them all totally invalid. Everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- œ^™ 09:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic has been addressed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Added a few very basic ones. Meets WP:NLIST. WP:V is not violated nor is the list indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is based on sources, not an arbitrary decision. One can make that clearer in the intro or on the TP -Mushy Yank. 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ I'm struggling to understand why a list of wiki-notable classical composers does not meet NLIST - any bibliographic dictionary of music is treating the set as a set, surely? What's the argument for deletion here? Verifiability is a content policy that is a good reason to remove content, but not to delete an entire article when large parts of it are indeed verifiable. I could see an argument to split this and move the charts into their respective lists, but again that's not a rationale for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with such a list in general, as long as it is usable, has some criteria (which might be "every composer that already has an article" - this is not the case now), and some sources. However, we already have such List of classical composers - which is not this one. So, this is a duplicate that (1) is almost unusable (cannot be searched unlike the other one), (2) has no sources (the other one has hundreds), (3) has no criteria (it does not seem that any criteria was applied to select the entries), (4) missing important information (school, works, etc. are present in the other list). So, we can easily see the violation of not just WP:NLIST, but also MOS:LIST, WP:V, and WP:CFORK. Moving the timelines to other lists as illustrations might be IMHO an acceptable solution, as our readers are used to a lot of pictures that require them to squint in order to see the fine details. While doing the move, maybe we can also remove - unsearchable - hyperlinks that make very hard-to-read color combinations (cf. the Philippe Verdelot entry in List of classical music composers by era#Renaissance era) or simply use contrasting colors for the text on the bars (once the diagrams are split into different articles, a much better supply of pastel backgrounds is available for each one (cf. the perfectly readable List of classical music composers by era#Romantic era). Викидим (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are a rationale for deletion though. MOS compliance is important but never sufficient to remove an otherwise viable article. Non-notable entries are added to lists all the time - that doesn't make the scope suddenly nonviable. Fundamentally, meeting NLIST is not changed by the current state of the article, only by whether the scope as we choose to define it is treated as a topic by RS, and it is, in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any solid argument in favour of deletion, and pretty much all encyclopedias of classical music have a chart like this, so the ‘unencyclopedic’ point makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - This AfD was withdrawn by the nominator three days ago; their withdrawal decision is near the top of the page but was added after the most recent vote by Mccapra near the bottom. I attempted a "Withdrawn" non-admin close but that created an error that I can't figure out, so an Admin may have to handle that. Regardless, the discussion seems to be over. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Doomsdayer520, since there's still outstanding delete !votes, "the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it" (WP:WITHDRAWN).~~ UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After 12 days it's clearly in Keep/no consensus territory. I don't know what "outstanding" would mean. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking me up on this, Johnbod. I somehow completely missed that this was relisted. Obviously not an early closure then, my mistake! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when a nominator withdraws the deletion argument and the running consensus is to keep the article, that can qualify for a snowball close, while this particular discussion qualifies for a non-admin close, even though WP:WITHDRAWN has a few policy qualifiers. Once again, I attempted the non-admin close here, which I have been done before, but there was a system error that I couldn't figure out how to fix so here we stand. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [14] [15] [16] [17]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [18]), as well as in post-season articles like [19] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTSTATS must apply here. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided here indicate that these awards are considered as a group and meet WP:LISTN. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS is being cited here, since indicating who wins an award is not a "stat". Yes some of the awards are for things like "most runs" but other awards are for subjective things like Player of the Final, Best Emerging, Best Catch. This is no different from most other major sports leagues where there will be awards for most goals, best save percentage, etc. and isn't a NOTSTATS violation. Even if the list as a whole lacks notability, then the obvious solution would be to create individual articles for each of these awards, since as many even delete !voters have noted, these awards do get more coverage as individual awards and likely meet WP:GNG, than as a group. Merging with List of Indian Premier League records and statistics also makes no sense, since at least the non-objective awards would be neither records or statistics and would require a rename of that page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that Information architecture is one of the sources of disagreement between editors: where should this topic / these topics be covered in Wikipedia to best serve our users? The AfD relisters have encouraged us to consider whether other options would allow us to reach consensus, and @Patar knight's note that this article could be split into separate articles (for the top 3–4 awards) seems like a reasonable approach to me. Reviewing the options listed in WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes, we could implement this via a merge to Indian Premier League#Awards followed by an immediate split to other articles, or alternatively, via dabification. I would be happy to change my !vote to support either of these two implementations. Preimage (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed opinion; Foud source that has basic info about the origin of the family: "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906., dewiki had a rer to its C.o.A: Maximilian Gritzner: Die Europäischen Fürstengeschlechter nicht Römisch-Kaiserlicher oder Deutsch-bundesfürstlicher Extraction. In: J. Siebmacher’s grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch. Band 2. Bauer und Raspe, Nürnberg 1894, S. 49. And ruwiki has other useful references. --Altenmann >talk 19:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [20] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[21]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.

Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you mention above in your now "Keep" Vote the linked book in my reference [1] has a description of the family and its coat. I agree with you that the entry should be kept. Thank you for the article improvements. Axisstroke (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - as noted many times at AfD and other fora, you need to take a look at the sources on other languages' Wikipedia articles on the topic. You also can't take one isolated fact that needs citation as a reason to delete. I'd recommend advocates of keeping the article substantially to add the sources, in context, so that it passes [WP:HEY]]. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your vote violates WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN not to say WP:AGF (suggesting lack of due diligence). If one looks at the ruwiki article, nothing there indicates in-depth coverage beyond genealogy books (Russian: . Родословный сборник, родословная книга. Родословная роспись, Генеалогическое древо. Even "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906. is little beyond name-throwing. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This has been tagged for GNG since 2017 by someone else. It's not just me saying this now.
  And als Altenmann points out, the articles in other languages are essentially just as bad:
  - lv:Lobanovi–Rostovski is WP:UNSOURCED
  - et:Lobanov-Rostovski is 2 WP:SPSes and 1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - de:Lobanow-Rostowski has 1 WP:FAIL, because the claim Die Familie, eine Seitenlinie der Rurikiden, soll auf Juri Dolgoruki (1090–1157), Fürst von Rostow, Großfürst der Kiewer Rus und Gründer von Moskau, ein Sohn des Kiewer Großfürsten Wladimir Monomachs (1053–1125), zurückgehen. Sein Nachkomme war Fürst Wasilko Konstantinowitsch von Rostow (1208–1238). is not supported by this website where you can buy a painting (!) of 'Der Heilige Fürst Wassili Konstantinowitsch von Rostow'; plus 1 book from 1894 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - ru:Лобановы-Ростовские has
    1 collection of manuscripts from somewhere in the 17th century ru:Родословные росписи конца XVII века, which is just plain WP:PRIMARY
    
    1 book from 1776 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1787 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1810 (! WP:AGEMATTERS) ru:Родословная книга М. Г. Спиридова
    
    1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1886 ru:Родословный сборник русских дворянских фамилий (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1890 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    A museum deadlink
    
    A worldportrait.org deadlink
    
    An archived press release / advertisment for visiting a museum
    
    1 book from 1991 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 book from 2011 that is not actually used (no in-line citations), and appears to be a reprint of WP:PRIMARY ru:Родословная книга М.А. Оболенского from c. 1600 (!)
    
    1 entry in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of 1905 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 1906 Brockhaus and Efron passing mention which Altenmann already assessed as little beyond name-throwing; and finally
    
    4 unreliable WP:SELFPUB genealogy websites, including the notoriously unreliable WP:ANCESTRY.COM.
  In short, it's a lot of hot air. The few relatively modern sources that might be reliable are not even used, are reprints of WP:PRIMARY sources that are not critically examined, or provide so little information that they do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reformatted as a surname page, which it virtually is already, + rename to Lobanov-Rostovsky. Ingratis (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry; I reverted. People have to evaluate sources during deletion discussion. Nobody prevents you from creating Lobanov-Rostovsky page, though. --Altenmann >talk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. that's what I did now, noticing that there is a voluminous ru:Лобанов-Ростовский surnamer page in ruwiki. --Altenmann >talk 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are wrong: WP:ATD: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I have reverted you. I see that you've unnecessarily created a second surname page, which you've padded out, as you seem to like to do, with a lot of redlinks to other Wikis. Great - so helpful. Ingratis (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you very much for the praise. Yes I do like information to be interconnected, including interwiki. Just to make you further happy, I will replace redlinks with articles translated from ruwiki momentarily. Piece of cake. --Altenmann >talk 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ingratis. Can be easily kept as an WP:APOENTRIES page. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out by Altenmann and some others, there's just not enough here. If there are enough notable facts to write about, where it could at least somewhat be expanded and properly sourced, then it would be a keep. As it stands right now though, it's hard to see why it should remain. It might be appropriate to merge the current content into the next most relevant article. Laurelius (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laurelius:, I did some due diligence and added missing refs into the article, and changed my vote. --Altenmann >talk 20:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: The procedural keep suggestion above does not address the core issue of notability and verifiability raised by the nominator. There's clearly insufficient reliable sources and a lack of in-depth coverage to justify WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in my comment above, I have re-structured this as a surname page - still needs renaming, which I won't do during an AfD. Longer term, there is no doubt that this is a notable princely family; given the POINTy antipathy on show in the discussion, the content can wait to be replaced as and when, as further sourcing becomes available. Ingratis (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And I reverted it. You are not supposed to destroy a valid article during an AfD dicrussion which has all chances to be kept. --Altenmann >talk 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions