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

Goodfellas–The Sopranos cast overlap

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

WP:COATRACK article. The gigantic lead and each source mostly just talks about how Goodfellas influenced The Sopranos, and notability is not established for the fact that it has cast members in common (and why this should be considered particularly remarkable, given they are both mob-centric and cast around NYC, instead of just basic trivia, is anyone's guess). Not to mention there are factual errors, like claiming James Gandolfini had a role in Bullets Over Broadway.

Also, in general, there are not really many actors in The Sopranos and Goodfellas whose roles are both interesting. Do we really need a list that says "Gaetano LoGiudice" played "Member of Hill's sixties crew" in Goodfellas and "Bada Bing! customer" in Sopranos? Even recognizable names like tobin Bell, who are in both, have fairly trivial roles. --Quiz shows 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cast overlap fails WP:GNG - there are several articles that list the actors who were in both, but that's not sufficient analysis for sigcov. The influence of Goodfellas on The Sopranos more broadly may be worth a merge per WP:OVERLAP, but this discussion is about the cast overlap article. Anerdw (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's subject is trivial and does not have enough independent coverage to be notable. MrTaxes (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of Guatemala

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

Only a single source which does not even assert the existence of the role of "Second Lady of Guatemala" and only supports the fact that Juan Alfonso Fuentes Soria became interim vice president. No mention of his wife Sandra Rosales. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Guatemala. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies of India

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

A niche term at best, a made-up term at worse to promote an Indian counterpart to the American second lady. None of the existing citations mentions the term "second lady" and are only used to support claims that certain persons are wives of the Indian vice president. A search on Google does not yield any evidence of established endonymic usage of the term second lady of India (which is not merely a substitute for vice president wife). Searching "Uprashtrapati Bhawan hostess" also does not yield any quality sources. The role of Second Lady of India (as hostess of the Uparashtrapati Bhavan may not even exist even in unofficial capacity. Or if they do, they don't use the term). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and India. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oviemuno (given name)

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

Fails WP:NNAME, with only one notable bearer (Ovie Alston is short for Overton). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oviemuno already links to Ovie Ejaria (Oviemuno Dominic Ejaria), who seems to be the only Oviemuno on Wikipedia, so no rationale for a name list.—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

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

WP:NEOLOGISM and original research there is no such thing as a second lady/gentleman in the Philippine context. It is all made up trying to create an equivalent to the American one when none exists. Not every American concept has a Philippine concept. One will never find Philippine-based sources describing the concept of a supposed "second lady" even in a customary/non-official basis like the first lady/gentleman role which does exist as the Malacanang Palace host/essHariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of WP:OR. Borgenland (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unofficial position lacking in significant (or any) coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Hariboneagle927! I would kindly like to suggest that instead of deleting the article on the basis of the non-existence of the title of "second lady/gentleman", the article could be retitled as "Spouse of the vice president of the Philippines" instead.

I have been able to find several official sources from the Presidential Library and Museum—the inaugural programs of presidents Ramon Magsaysay and Diosdado Macapagal refer to their vice presidents' wives, Leonila Garcia and Edith Fabella-Pelaez, respectively, were referred to as "the vice president's lady":

Magsaysay's inaugural program:

https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/OfficialProgramOfTheInaugurationOfPresidentRamonMagsaysay/19531230-Magsaysay.pdf

Macapagal's inaugural program:
https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/OfficialProgramOfTheInaugurationOfPresidentDiosdadoMacapagal/19611230-Macapagal.pdf

Although there is one official program, which is of the late FVR's inauguration, referring to Loi Ejercito, wife of former president Joseph Estrada as "the second lady":
Ramos's inaugural program:
https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/OfficialProgramOfTheInaugurationOfPresidentFidelRamos/19920630-Ramos.pdf

Prior to Magsaysay's presidency, the wife of Elpidio Quirino's VP Fernando Lopez, Mariquita Javellana, was simply referred to as Mrs. Lopez:
Quirino's inaugural program:
https://ia800502.us.archive.org/7/items/OfficialProgramoftheInaugurationofPresidentElpidioQuirino/19491230-Quirino.pdf

I kindly hope you will consider this matter with discernment and approve for the article's publication if it were to be renamed. Thank you! FiveGeekabytes (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps. Though I do not think the role of being a vice president spouse is that prominent compared to the spouse of the president (more like their role as First Lady/Gentleman) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much understand your point, and thank you for your feedback. The VP's spouse is certainly less prominent in terms of role and recognition compared to first ladies/gentleman, but I have created the article in acknowledgement of the role's contribution to our political narrative. There are somehow existing historical and cultural contexts (e.g. the cited state documents about presidential inaugurations) to back the page up, and by renaming the page, it would now pertain to a comprehensive documentation of vice presidential consorts throughout the years, given that some might not know who they were. I am also a first-time contributor, so I am still learning the ropes on how and what to add, but I hope that this explanation could serve as an allowable compromise. FiveGeekabytes (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, though I'll be blunt. This is not an uncommon occurrence for new editors. Sometimes you'll be creating articles that does not pass WP:GNG which then gets tagged by other editors for deletion. Heck I created articles about tea drinks with poor sourcing in my earlier years.

If the other editors agree to rename the page as a compromise then good. I cannot promise any certain outcomes since Wikipedia runs on what we call consensus including this process.

If not, well you could still add more information on the vice president wives/husband's articles themselves. Or for those who have barely any coverage. You could mention them in the personal life section of the certain vice president. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of general secretaries of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

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

Fails WP:GNG, I propose it to be deleted and merged with All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searches have turned up sufficient in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support that the General Secretary of the AIADMK meets the WP:GNG notability guideline. Reliable sources are cited to verify this. Since 1977, individuals holding this position have played significant roles in both Indian national and state-level politics. They have influenced key political alliances — supporting the Janata Party government in 1979, the Congress government under Narasimha Rao in 1991, and the BJP-led government in 1998. AIADMK, under its General Secretary, has allied with national parties multiple times, impacting national outcomes. Notably, from 2014 to 2016, the General Secretary led AIADMK as the third largest party in Parliament with over 50 MPs across both houses. Kalpana Sundar ^Talk 07:06, May 23, 2025 (UTC)

List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions

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

A sad event, but the victims aren't notable. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and China. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a rather huge event(Compared to 911 on some occasions), and victims lists are pretty common on the article themselves, just that the article itself likely cannot fit the people. Now, I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I would say this is about as notable as Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, this list sort of already exists on List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, and among the casualties is the former deputy chief of the TEDA zone fire brigade.

Additionally, more secondary sources will likely come soon to increase notability, this article was sort of rushed a little bit, as I originally intended for this to simply be a section in the 2015 Tianjin Explosions article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don´t get the logic. We don´t list the victims for small accidents, as these normally don´t have an article for the event. We don´t lust the victims of truly large events (war, famine, natural disasters) as there are too many, it would be an indiscriminate list, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, take your pick... But for a small group of intermediate events we suddenly have articles to list the victims, even though they aren´t really any different from all these others. Seems completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thehistorianisaac ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am reluctant to delete any topic that is the subject of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with Fram. Event is notable as major industrial accident. Individual casualties are not, unless by some other criteria and those can be included/summarized in the relevant section of the event article. Notable findings from the Chinese Journal of Traumatology source can be added to the main event article; right now it's just being used to verify casualty statistics. It's really stretching to claim that this event is comparable to 9/11; nothing of the sort is mentioned in the event article, and I think it's pretty safe to say this industrial accident was not a major geopolitical event with commensurate global effects lasting decades (and ongoing?) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Fram@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I propose a third solution. Of course, I still would prefer to keep the article, however it is possible this could simply be merged back to the original article, whether it be purely the statistics table or the list itself. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th possible solution:

I could possibly expand the article to be more similar to Casualties of the September 11 attacks instead of Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks and include information on stuff like initial disaster relief(which has gained tonnes of coverage, thanks to the actions of the 8th street company) and make the article notable, while keeping the list itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this could also include related things(who all were heavily covered) like an alleged higher casualty count, political discussion about the police and volunteer firefighters being technically private police and originally being ineligible for certain awards etc.

This was originally how I planned to do the list, though it got AfD'ed before I managed to fully write it Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RovingPersonalityConstruct For the comparison to 911, here is a source from Radio France Internationale citing bloomberg that many chinese compared the damage of the attack to the September 11 attacks (https://www.rfi.fr/cn/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD/20150820-%E7%BA%BD%E7%BA%A6%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E9%98%9F%E4%B8%BA%E5%A4%A9%E6%B4%A5%E9%81%87%E9%9A%BE%E7%9A%84%E6%B6%88%E9%98%B2%E5%91%98%E9%99%8D%E5%8D%8A%E6%97%97%E8%87%B4%E5%93%80) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable as in similar event/scale/impact. As I said, industrial accident vs. major geopolitical event. That sort of thing requires more than the NYFD lowering its flag to half-mast like they did after 9/11. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fram and RovingPersonalityConstruct. Perhaps further detail of casualties can be added to the main article, but a stand-alone article is not warranted. - Amigao (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Fram@Amigao@RovingPersonalityConstruct

I think I need to clarify something:

The list of victims already existed to some extent on the List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, however that only included the active service firefighters. The "victims" section of 2015 Tianjin Explosions originally linked to this article.

The only thing the current article does is include volunteer firefighters, police, civilians and adding some context, such as regarding the 8th Street Company, the legal status of the private police and volunteer firefighters. The only thing this article really changes is that the info is easier to access and more complete. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these "killed in the line of duty" articles (not just China, but e.g. the endless US articles) need deletion or severe pruning, but that's a separate discussion. Having part of this information available in another article is not really a reason to create or keep this one. Fram (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the killed in the line of duty articles should be deleted or pruned as line of duty deaths often receive significant coverage and are much-discussed social topics whether in USA or china, in fact many of them need significant expansions; But yeah that's another topic.

Many topics related to Tianjin explosions casualties, as said above, did gain huge coverage by Chinese and foreign media, such as said above, the legal status and eligability for rewards of some of the firefighters and police. Many casualty related topics do have notability but not enough to have their own articles, so I put them here.

I think a victims list is pretty reasonable to include in an article like this, and I really hate to be the WP:OTHERSTUFF guy, but aren't we ignoring the fact that the September 11 attacks have a total of 3 lists + a casualty article? Yes, they are different in nature, but I really need to point out the inconsistencies here.

As stated before, victims lists are also pretty common overall. I think at most this article can simply be merged back to the original. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original article was pretty much just rushed, currently it has more content and will likely be further expanded. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 4:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:NOPAGE. No independent notability. There's nothing in this article that can't be merged into the parent—if it's not there already. The accident was the notable thing; a list of unfortunates whom it killed is not. It also verges on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I think it has been pretty normal to include victims of crimes(just see serial killers); For merging, this actually was originally meant to be part of the parent article, but this would probably be way too long. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: You have replied to every delete !vote in this dscussion. Indeed, you've contributed 50% of the edits to this page on your own. Please don't do that, it's considered WP:BLUDGEONing. You've made your points—several times now—and repetition is unhelpful. I suggest you step back and let uninvolved editors make their own minds up (which they will anyway!). Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an independent, reliable source that discusses these people as a group, so WP:NLIST is met. Looking at the article, we have [1][2][3][4]. Given NLIST is for "Stand-alone lists", I read it as superseding NOPAGE; either way, none of the three bolded bullet points under NOPAGE apply here. We have plenty of sources and discussing this topic at length in the main article would be undue.

On previous arguments for deletion: 1. The victims do not have to be notable for the list topic to be (WP:NLISTITEM). 2. The significance of the event does not matter in deciding notability or suitability of a stand-alone list. Neither do comparisons to other events. Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Although we all (or most) sympathize with victims creating a memorial is supposed to be among What Wikipedia is not. See: Wikipedia:Victim lists. There is apparently a source that names the victims. List the number of victims and link to the list. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not soley a victims list, but also includes information related to casualties during the explosions. Additionally, some of the casualties are notable(but have no wikipedia article and likely will not have one), such as as a deputy fire chief and a deputy police chief. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty which this article substantially duplicates. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the main purpose of having a list of people is because they are notable and the list makes it easier to find the article about the person concerned. This isn't the case with this article, as few, if any, of the people listed have full biographies. The difference with the casualties of the September 11 attacks is that many notable people were killed, some of whom now have Wikipedia article. That is not the case with this industrial explosion, where about all we know about these individuals is their name and their firefighting company. That is not enough to write even a start of a biography. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG; Google search doesn't find any reliable in-depth secondary sources; ~~only source on the article is primary~~ loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Organizations. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources Guylaen (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that anyone can nominate, but because you don't have a user page, and this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm slightly suspicious of your intentions here in nominating this article for deletion. I do not mean to be accusatory in my nature here, I'm just a little confused. This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Also, I realize my mistake in not adding a Wikipedia:Stub tag before. I've added that now to the page. I usually remember to do that. Guylaen (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guylaen

you don't have a user page A userpage is optional, and that shouldn't make me (or anyone) suspicious or anything like that; see Trappist the monk and they are an administrator.

this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation Just the fact that something has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make it important or notable, AFAIK.

This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Current or former people holding this title may be notable, but I haven't seen any INDEPTH sources on the title itself.

Also please note that I don't know everything there is to know about Wikipedia and its policies so if I made a mistake please inform me. loserhead (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in either case, I've now listed more sources on this page than there are on List of leaders of Ford Motor Company. Guylaen (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly encourage you to please read bullet "C-2" at WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."

I literally only made the page six days ago. That's less than a week. I was going to properly build out this page a little more, but I got completely sidetracked by Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025. I just kind of fell down a Ukraine rabbit hole. I have the same problem that most other writers here have: so little time, and so many articles.

Also, I literally have a final due tonight, and I have to go meet Leon Panetta again at noon. I would be looking forward to it, but I think I have a hernia and I've probably got GERD and I feel like crap. Anyways.

The problem in searching for a term like "CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation" is that in that most cases, the position itself is not the primary subject of a news story, but the person who holds the position, or the person who is doing something while they hold that position. So, yes, of course you're going to find mostly articles about the people. And by the rules, that's actually fine.

However, there are sources - you just have to muddle yourself through the internet to find them. Guylaen (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because the sources don't exist, but in this case it is the Parallax effect: the individual CEO's loom far larger than the position of CEO. Guylaen (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other than the Forbes puff piece, and the NY Post attack article, I don't see anything unreliable. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The easy compromise is to rename it 'List of CEOs....' as in fact it is and should be in case of affiliated person positions (out of humbleness, to say the least). 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of princesses of Britain (before 1917)

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

There are several problems with this article. First, the entries after 1714 largely duplicate those in British_princess#List_of_princesses_of_the_blood_royal_since_1714 and British_princess#List_of_princesses_by_marriage_since_1714. Second, as British_princess#History notes, the title "princess" was used sparingly before 1714 and even more so before 1301. That makes some of the earlier entries anachronistic - the creating editor seems to be applying a more modern rule to members of the medieval royal family that is not supported by sources (for example Weir, Alison (1996). Britains's royal families : the complete genealogy. Internet Archive. London : Pimlico. ISBN 978-0-7126-7448-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) which is referenced a lot). Third, a number of entries in the list are referenced to absurd sources, leading me to suspect that an LLM has been used to help generate this article, hallucinating references in the processs. For example:

Æthelhild is sourced to:
- Miersch, Daniel; Wild, Michael; Jungbluth, Pascal; Betsch, Marcel; Windolf, Joachim; Hakimi, Mohssen (March 2011). "A transcuneiform fracture-dislocation of the midfoot". The Foot. 21 (1): 45–47. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2010.10.001. ISSN 0958-2592. PMID 21075613.
Goda of England or Godgifu or Gode is sourced to:
- MACDONALD, J. Ross; BARLOW, C.A. (1965), "Equilibrium Double-Layer Theory", Electrochemistry, Elsevier, pp. 199–247, doi:10.1016/b978-1-4831-9831-6.50023-0, ISBN 978-1-4831-9831-6, retrieved 2025-04-07

Taking all that into account, I suggest that the article has no place in mainspace. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that is is describing pre-1917 princesses according to the 1917 letters patent makes it obviously original research. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A historical list of princesses should be based on who was considered a princess in their own time -- not by letters patent which, in some cases, were written hundreds of years after their death. Applying the definition of a princess from the 20th century to royals from prior centuries looks like original research. As the nom mentions, certain sources cited appear to be irrelevant to the topic anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly formatted original research. The real list is at British princess#List of princesses of the blood royal since 1714. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep : why should we only keep princesses since 1917? I suggest we keep this article! And correct it, of course. Sg7438 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a list of those, as both I and others have said. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and all of the above. You cannot put information from different sources together like pieces of a puzzle and draw a conclusion that suits a certain narrative. Keivan.f^Talk 20:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in WWE born outside the United States

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

Seems to be original research and fancruft. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as bundle AFD:

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Those lists are just fancruft, out of scope, and catalogue-like. They are not even acceptable/passable as category. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally using these lists today as a refrence 71.43.164.34 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This information is relevant, taking into account the internalization that WWE has had throughout its history. EnglishLuicheto (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Internalization? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an engagement to reach consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Mann Mann said, it's FANCRUFT. I though these articles were deleted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Breakthrough Prize laureates

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Being a distinguished female scientist is not considered especially notable in the 21st century, and there is no notice of such laureates as a group. Breakthrough Prize has a list of all winners (teeny tiny though it may be). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Awards, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would keep. Disagree that being a female scientist is not especially notable still. Think if this was true, this would be a much longer list. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy enough to look at the lists of winners and spot the female laureates, no need for a duplicative page. No sources that identify this as a separately notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

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

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.

OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.

This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. See WP:NOPAGE. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a thin line between using a "special interest" to build an encyclopedia – and using us a free web host to your synthesis of original material. This has crossed the line. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I give up. Let's just delete my article. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The insistence on calling it "my article" by the originating editor tends towards this being a special interest. Parts of the article's tree could be salvageable as part of the related articles, but only parts. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I call it mine because I was the one who made the entire article, including all of the family trees and everything else in it. Other editors made only minor edits. I probably shouldn't call it mine, as this is an encyclopedia for all. However, let us just delete the article. I do not know if any of the trees could be salvagable, maybe some are, but I don’t know which ones could be saved. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable enough, relatively new party which doesn't have a long established electoral history unlike the two established national parties, the BJP and INC, virtually no presence besides Delhi and Punjab. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Aam Aadmi Party's history is not really relevant to the notability of this list, but as far as I understand it is a very significant political party, regularly making the news even outside of India. This list should be judged on WP:NLIST, which says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Importantly, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". A brief web search turns up sources like [5], [6], [7], and [8], which discuss important parts of this topic (e.g. mentioning several of the people on the list as a group or telling us how many such people there are in total). I think this is clear evidence that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With only an argument to Delete and one to Redirect, there is no consensus here. I'd like to ask User:James100000 what his opinion is as he is the only other editor to comment but failed to "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete These are minor municipal elections, and I don'ty see the redirects since that would be a complete change of subject. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions