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:

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

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T vx1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 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]

List of mayors of Auburn, Maine

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

Seems to fail NLIST, and most of its subjects seem to fail NPOL. Auburn isn't so prominent that this article is necessary either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, United States of America, and Maine. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Auburn, Maine, perhaps as a collapsible table. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Vols Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. Without such, it seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Vols seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a defunct minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the seasons page, the opening day starter isn't unimportant but it does not qualify for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Tennessee. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article or merged into List of Nashville Sounds seasons. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This looks like WP:OR as this doesn't really pass GNG as a list. It's a featured list, but no one commented on the fact there's no secondary sources covering this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As list creator, just delete it and don't merge (it doesn't fit with any other team list or article). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders Opening Day starting pitchers

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

I do not see multiple independent reliable sources which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. The only non-database source which lists opening day starters for the team is this story posted on a rain date. It seems this list also fails WP:GNG. It must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flib, thanks for the feedback once again. I see your point. If there aren’t multiple independent sources showing notability beyond basic stats, and no prior consensus to split this off, then a standalone list may not be justified. I’d support merging it back into the team article unless stronger sourcing is found. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks like original research. There's no reason it can't be hosted somewhere, but it does not appear wiki-notable. I doubt any minor league opening day pitcher list would be. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually 1 list that is featured here, List of Nashville Sounds Opening Day starting pitchers. I can try and find newspaper links to old opening day starts for the railriders/yankees/red barons. TBJ10RH (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be featured, but I'd !vote to delete that for the same reason. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated it for deletion, SportingFlyer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merger targets for the information are List of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could affect the list's current featured list nomination however TBJ10RH (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Failing this nomination will also fail a featured list nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one.
TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merger targets for the information are List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of historic rosters may be relevant, but I don't see why opening day is significant. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I get it. But, Opening Day starters hold special weight in baseball. Even at the minor league level, teams and media highlight who gets the ball to start the season. Usually the local papers, MiLB.com, and team press releases often call attention to it. It’s more than just a roster detail. If the concern is that the article doesn’t yet show why it's significant, that feels like something we can fix through edits. Maybe by adding brief context or citations. Not by removing the article entirely. This seems like a case where cleanup or improvement would serve Wikipedia better than deletion. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MiLB.com and team press releases are not "independent" and have no bearing on whether the topic passes the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)

In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for the minor leagues. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that going forward on the articles later. Thank you TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication this passes WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Georgia (U.S. state). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, Gwinnett Daily Post, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easly fixable, please provide the "Three best sources" (or even "two") that provide in depth coverage of the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merger targets for the information are List of Gwinnett Stripers seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the list may lack a few independent sources, and I thank you for the feedback, however Opening Day starters are a recurring, notable tradition in baseball that's routinely covered by teams and local media. The list reflects that tradition, not just a collection of facts. It can be improved with context and sourcing, but that’s an editing issue, not a reason to delete. Splitting it from the main article makes sense given its focus and the precedent from similar baseball lists. If you truly have some problems with the article, I can make some changes to add more independent sources that could be deemed reliable although I may need a specific list of those. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for minor league. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you Flib TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sheriffs of Daviess County, Kentucky

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

Fails WP:V as no sources seem to have researched this information before. The page, which has no citations, is likely a combination of synthesis and original research. The page further fails WP:N as Daviess County has a population of about 100,000; much larger places lack articles listing their sheriffs. Mad Mismagius (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. This is verifiable official sheriff website, but does not receive significant coverage as a role in the county government that is not the head. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nekrasov

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

Invalid dab page, with a single valid item. I sometimes other bios created, then Alexander Nekrasov (disambiguation) may come in. --Altenmann >talk 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the footballer interwiki does not point to a footballer born in 1963, but one born in 1998. We also have that article, found at Aleksandr Nekrasov (footballer), but its notability looks very doubtful. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Araújo (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded two-item dab page. PROD was contested for some inexplicable reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Igor Araújo should be moved to Igor Araújo (fighter) and DAB should be at basename.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Ortizesp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD.
Oppose, per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr Theo (talk • contribs)
Comment: @Ortizesp:, @Barr Theo:. Please sign your comments next time. No opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people

Proposed deletions