Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists of people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists of people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists of people. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Lists of people

List of Lviv rabbis

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. The list is unsourced, lacks a lead, and most of the entries are non-notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Ukraine. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was a WP:BLAR ([1]). Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost every entry fails WP:NLIST since they're unreferenced. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually passes WP:NLIST [2]. Jahaza (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was going to say History of the Jews in Lviv, but there is no such page. I will try to find a suitable target, or possibly create that page since it is likely notable. But this itself I cant say qualifies NLIST. Metallurgist (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Kitts and Nevis people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Economics, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deprodding was a huge waste of time. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added more names to the list. To broaden the debate I wonder how many billionaires there are in the Caribbean more generally. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liechtenstein people by net worth

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NLIST. PROD was contested without any rationale in line with guidelines so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Liechtenstein. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a one-item list article. This list also glaringly omits Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein. (Hans-Adam is a savvy multibillionaire who parlayed his moderate inheritance into a very large global portfolio especially in agriculture.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written per WP:TNT. But... there is coverage of this topic such as [3]. It's possible this could pass WP:NLIST so no prejudice against recreation if someone comes along with sources and has multiple entries in said list.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – List with a single subject. Svartner (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earth-Two characters

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

A list of non-notable characters, pure plot sourced to plot (comic books). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two looks likely to end up in a redirect (target is not decided yet, maybe List of DC Multiverse worlds?), with maybe a bit of a merge. I am somewhat at a loss where to redirect/merge this lists of a characters (from what appears to be a non-notable setting). Lists of DC Comics characters? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate lists within Lists of DC Comics characters. Ugh… we should merge these into the DC comic character list pages… but there are many by alphabetical order so there isn’t a clean article to article merge. Not sure how to technically handle the attribution requirement in that context. What a nightmare. We might need to get help from admins at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to clarify how to go about this merge/split because following the normal process isn’t possible and I don’t know as if leaving a redirect is an option. 4meter4 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any exclusive characters listed on that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE...especially the ones from the Earth 2 comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I have no preference on the merge target. I agree that the lists could be better organized, but spinning them out into multiple non-notable list topics isn't the answer. This can be revisited through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso I of Spain

AfDs for this article:

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

The page itself admits "There has not been a monarch known as Alphonso or Alfonso I of Spain", so why does this dab page even exist? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Disambiguations, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the dab page at Alfonso I. PamD 07:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the concern raised in the nomination; it just shifts it elsewhere. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. If a reader or editor has found it a useful term, we should help them. If someone reading a history of present-day Spain finds a mention of "Alfonso I", this redirect will lead them to the dab page. PamD 05:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above and redirect to Alfonso I. The argument to delete assumes that every reader knows the intricacies of Spanish history, a very complicated field. If somebody read about modern history and saw Alfonsos XII and XIII, why wouldn't they look up to see who the first was, and why should we cut off the answer to that question? To list the possible sources of the river, various kings in the territory of Spain with the name Alfonso I, is more than helpful. Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a redirect is made to Alfonso I, would it be appropriate to add Alfonso XII to the "See also" section, since he is noted to be the first "King Alfonso" of unified Spain? I could see that being a point of confusion. Ike Lek (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of individuals who served as student leaders in schools

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

Completely non-defining list. A student leadership position in primary school? This the very definition of WP:Trivia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not meet WP:NLIST in my view. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Education, and Schools. jolielover♥talk 05:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. jolielover♥talk 05:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I haven't had a chance to look through all the references yet, but the first 8 easily accessible ones are all reliable sources that verify the claims of student leadership [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. The same arguments are relevant here as are presented in similar discussions surrounding prima facie trivial articles, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (4th nomination) - the only consideration here is whether this article is notable for a stand-alone list per WP:LISTN. The topic is common enough to have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources (often in relation to future leadership or crimes), and the article itself references these well. Deletion arguments based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:TRIVIAL should explain why these policies apply to this list, rather than simply stating them. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 14:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is broad and trivial. With the list you linked, it at least has a fixed number of people that can possibly be on the list, given there have only been so many Presidents of the US. This list is very broad and can theoretically have any of the 1,980,258 biographies in it if they were a student leader. Student leader is also not easily defineable - facial hair is. The list's entire lead paragraph is defining itself, giving it a very broad definition. Even primary school is included - primary school! I can't imagine primary or even middle school elections that have any worth in your CV or resume. jolielover♥talk 09:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It’s not enough for the individual items to be verifiable, WP:NLIST requires discussion of the group as a group (even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). No sources have been provided to show that "student leaders" are discussed as a collection of key individuals. Moreover, surely this list would have too many wiki-notable possible entrants — tens of thousands? If this is an important way to navigate bios (and I’m not sure it is) a category would be a better solution. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE and agree with discussions here. Asteramellus (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad criteria, and technically this would also include student leaders who committed infamous acts later in life. Everyone else has cited good reasons for not maintaining this either in article or category lists. Nathannah • 📮
Delete Not covered as a group and fails LISTN. Overly broad and indiscriminate topic that isn't a defining characteristic. No one cares that you or I or a celebrity or politician was a school class president, a position with virtually no actual responsibility (ours organized prom, fundraisers, and spirit weeks). Student government president#Notable student government presidents should also be deleted unless there's substance that describes what the person did and why it was significant. Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is literally non-defining and does not come close to WP:NLIST. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation

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

The scope of this list is vague and does not appear to meet WP:NLIST as a standalone list. It has been tagged as possibly including WP:OR since 2016. Further confusing the scope of this list, the introduction spends more time detailing what is not included, rather than what is included; for example, classification by birth place or multiple citizenship. There are no independent reliable third party sources cited, rather it usees only statistical databases and unsourced footnotes. Without a defined scope this seems like original research and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, compared to the better defined List of association football players capped by two senior national teams. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BEFORE, certain sports such as association football have multiple reliable sources available discussion why playing for more than one nation is important, but I cannot say the same for all sports. If any section of this could be salvaged, perhaps splitting off into a separate well-defined lists by sport would alleviate WP:PEIS problems. Flibirigit (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the list in its current state is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, I know this a topic of discussion for Olympic athletes in RS, and possibly in other areas of athletics. The current list doesn't seem to make a distinction within a particular area of athletics. It's possible some of this content would be able to be covered within a more focused list(s). It seems like this article could benefit with some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports where editors might have a better idea about potential splitting of the list into something that would comply with WP:NLIST. I kind of whish this hadn't been taken to AFD because I feel like its a more complex editorial issue than something we can effectively handle at AFD. Maybe a draftify might be appropriate if editors involved in sports want to work on retooling it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates

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

Fails WP:NLIST for lack of sources that discuss the ordinaries of the various Anglican-rite Catholic ordinariates as a group. In contesting a PROD, A. B. said this passes NLIST since all the entries are bluelinked, but there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. (They are already listed at the pages for the individual ordinariates.) I did a BEFORE search but happy to be proven wrong if anyone can turn up sourcing to demonstrate an NLIST pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is no evidence that sources have covered these individually notable bishops/priests as a group. It is a common misconception that this is required for a list. What WP:LIST says is that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources..." However, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see it as not needed duplication since they are all already in a list at the pages for the individual ordinariates. Rolluik (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetika (name)

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

Not needed (and was useless, as no hatnote pointed here from the target of the basename Preetika until I added one just now, so this page had unsurprisingly minimal pageviews). There is now a hatnote at the target article of the base name redirect, which helps the reader better. PamD 10:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight clarification/correction to the above: a redirect from Preetika to Preetika Rao was created in 2011, after the article was moved from the mononym. Nothing was done to help readers looking for the article Preetika Chawla, created in 2014, until I added a {{redirect}} hatnote to Preetika Rao today. Pageviews are vastly higher for Rao than for Chawla, though this could be inflated by the readers who were looking for Chawla by her forename. So either:

Rao is the primary topic, and all is now well but Preetika (name) is not needed, or
Neither is the primary topic, so Preetika should no longer be a redirect, and a name page should be created at Preetika.

There is no scenario in which Preetika (name) is useful. PamD 18:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should MOVE Preetika (name) to Preetika. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe PamD didn't want to go through WP:RFD. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looked to me as if Rao was the primary topic. PamD 22:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree for it to be Moved: it should have been created at the base name, overwriting the existing redirect, instead of being created as a new page. PamD 23:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOPT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both Preetika (name) and Preetika Both redirect to Preetika Rao when there are 2 targets. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:NOPT, a disambiguation page is allowed for 2 entries when there is no primary topic which in this case this is. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Preetika and Delete Preetika (name). There is no need for the disambiguated title or a redirect at Preetika (name). We still need a disambiguation page at Preetika to cover both people with this name.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Preetika as a given name page, overwriting the existing redirect. (ATD !vote from original proposer) PamD 23:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dittfach

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2018. Has to go. Only 2 articles in it so fails WP:NLİST. can someone help me set this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorguy223 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a surname list, a common type of set index article. References are not required here, and two-entry surname lists generally satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIA. Surname index articles also have a navigation/disambiguation function.4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Hall of Fame

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

Cannot find any decent in-depth coverage. Anyone can start a vanity award. There is no money or any real kudois attached to this award. And this article has quickly led to lots of other articles being spammed with links to this so-called award. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think it is fair to call this a "vanity award" or "so-called award" without proof. Most of the recipients are notable, as can be seen from the column of mostly blue links to the names of recipients. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eastmain. That some of the recipients are notable counts for nothing, as no one has to give their permission to be given an award from anyone else. YouTube is not a suitable ref, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Arts, Awards, Organizations, Science, Sports, Asia, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't seen in-depth secondary coverage either that would satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing really independent beyond things like press releases or articles focusing on the awardees. The mention of awardees having their own BLP pages isn't relevant here and would run against WP:INHERIT. We don't chain notability of one page to the notability of another. This is a notability discussion for the WP:NORG, not those other pages. Coverage of the group itself appears to be pretty trivial rather than substantial too. KoA (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage in digitised newspapers, and in news stories found through a google search (including in news media in Asian countries). References could certainly be added for the inductees. Some of the sources also have more information about the Hall of Fame and the Robert Chinn Foundation, which could also be added to the article. According to the sources, it is a non-profit charity, and does provide support to various beneficiaries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, RebeccaGreen. You say that there are sources, but have not added any here or to the article itself. WP:ORG sets a higher bar for this sort of article than for most other article types. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak)

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

This one, and all following pages listed in Template:List of Olympic competitors intro, should be draftified again, following the many complaints at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Creating a list of Olympic competitors. These script or bot created pages are not ready for the mainspace and need thorough reworking to become acceptable. They were draftified but moved back to the mainspace under false pretenses. Arguments why these lists shouldn't exist as is can be found in the linked discussion, which makes it clear that at the moment there is no consensus for their format, contents, ...

Working on them in draft and then move a corrected, consensus-based version to the mainspace (if such a version can be found) would be the right way forward. Fram (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics. Fram (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As the nom notes, many issues have been raised with these lists, ~~among them that they list appearances of Youth Olympics in combination with the regular Olympic games~~, and are poor navigational aids. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to resolve (if possible) the data dump problems. Geschichte (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/delete When there are tens of thousands of items in a topic, we should not have them in a single list. Breaking something up alphabetically into 64 pages that are each themselves among the largest pages on Wikipedia does not actually assist anyone in providing information or a means of navigation. Reywas92^Talk 15:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 65 list articles on Olympians is too much but 827 lists on asteroids is okay? (Ex: List of minor planets: 173001–174000) And this Olympian list isn't among the longest articles on Wikipedia, it's not even in the top 1,000. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There are 15 of these 65 lists in the top 1000 though. Fram (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Where did I say that was okay? An alphabetical list of names isn't quite the same as a list of celestial objects but I'm not a big fan of that either. I did already suggest in the linked discussion that breaking the list down by sport rather than letter of last name is somewhat more navigable. — Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's some of the "reworking" needed to "become acceptable"? I feel like if these are draftified we'll just have a certain set of editors endlessly arguing on why they don't like the list, thus making a "consensus-based version" impossible. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to when these lists were mass-created with little input from the community at the time of their creation? Let'srun (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for community feedback on 12 July a full week before creation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Creating a list of Olympic competitors because other editors had indicated that a list was needed, pinging all interested users including both you and BeanieFan11 at that time soliciting feedback and responding to all points. I'm just not sure what else I could have done in that regard. It's a large list, but it was created over a period of weeks with community feedback heavily taken into consideration. --Habst (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These exhaustive lists are extremely long, in violation of list inclusion criteria that state exhaustive lists "more than a few hundred or thousand entries" should only include notable entries.
Copying a summary of my arguments from the discussion:
The table also doesn't even link to the specific events the subject competed in, which makes it useless for navigation for non-notable entries even though the whole reason the list was created was to serve as a redirect target for non-notable Olympians who competed in multiple years/events. Instead of a gigantic alphabetic list that takes 30 s to load fully and has no further information on the subject beyond sport and years of first/last appearance, readers searching for non-notable multi-Olympians should just be redirected to the page where their participation is first discussed and a hat link provided to their other appearances, as has been done at AfD lately.
To be honest, I don't see a version of these lists ever gaining consensus, at least not with the current scope and format. Either scrap it altogether, or change it to be a list of lists encompassing the "list of [country] Olympians" that exists for some countries already, which can be further spun out into "list of [country] Olympians in [sport]" as needed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false statement. None of the lists take anywhere near 30 seconds to load. When tested at 50 Mbps, the pages took less than 1second to load. The lists range between 300 and 450 kilobytes, and it would be surprising if they took longer. Miria~01 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this, although it should be noted that the original lists (where the competitors were divided into the 27 letters, no matter how many there were) were so bloated that loading times were a issue. However, Habst later did split them up into what exists right now. There are other reasons to oppose the lists, and I personally do oppose them as they stand, but this isn't the main problem right now for me. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Olympic_competitors_(A)&oldid=1300180162
Even with individual letters, the render time never reaches the alleged 30 seconds. In fact, it takes longer to render it complete on mobile in desktop mode, but it's only 5-7 seconds at most (depending on the mobile browser). Even if that's not the main problem, such exaggerations with incorrect statements should simply be avoided in general. Miria~01 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the "that" in "that's a false statement" is only referring to the couple words in an exaggeration I made within a quoted passage...? JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I've now noticed, you posted this a few days ago on August 12th, where it was already criticized in a reply.I simply find it strange to repeat something incorrect, even as a quote, without a strikethrough Even if it was meant to be a rhetorical device, the exaggeration here is strange. You denounce the supposedly long loading times in the discussion without actually stating exactly how long they really are (in reality, less than 1 second). Miria~01 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On WikiProject Olympics the creation of such lists was actually supported by most Users, even if the perspectives of the creation differ (whether by alphabetical, sport, or country). But it cannot be denied that some users, who generally favor deletion, ultimately only want to remove it, because they don't like it and make no suggestions for improvement other than deleting it.
These lists are easily sortable by nation, sport, and even the year of the athlete's first and last participation The data in such lists can be easily scraped using simple scripts for further research. From this lists of Olympian athletes, one can also determine which athletes competed for multiple nations[12], for which there are no lists on Wikipedia.
Overall, I see no reason to delete the information content of this simple list, without modules and images, so loading shouldn't be a problem with the average or median internet speeds worldwide.[13]][14] Actually, I don't see the large number of athletes per page list as a problem in general, since simple searches are possible, using CTR+F (Control Find) on PC or "find on page" option on mobile browsers. Miria~01 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not easily sortable, because there's not much point of sorting by nation or sport if you only get the segment of atheletes whose name begins with certain starting letters. With tens of thousands of names on dozens of pages, it's not actually easy to see who competed for multiple nations, but perhaps that ought to be a new list. If you're one of the very small number of people who uses scripts to scrape data, I supposed you could just as easily scrape it from Olympics.com the same way these pages were made in the first place. It's not that people don't like it, it's that it serves no actual useful or informative purpose. — Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, exactly; sorting is absolutely useless for these lists. Multi-Olympic athletes would be a better list if executed properly. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The argument about segmentation is, of course, a point of criticism, and I don't reject it. The point about data scraping is, of course, not significant, but it should be mentioned that it is much easier to extract data (with simple scripts) from Wikipedia with its very simple HTML tables. It would even be a colossal task to extract all the athletes from https://www.olympics.com/en/athletes/, since it is in a database and you don't have access to it. In addition, the database on the website is incomplete, which the Olympic Studies Centre confirmed after an email inquiry, but they are striving to complete it, as they said. For my inquiry I asked, why Józef Klukowski (two medals in art competitions) is not included, although other Olympic art competition participants are listed on the website's database. The simple reason was, that the data is not entered in the database. This also affects many other Olympic participants in many different sports. Miria~01 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up so we can reach consensus. I read all the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Creating a list of Olympic competitors and created a new format for the lists that I believe addresses every one of the outstanding issues:
1. Youth Olympics start / end dates are no longer listed Y (see "Thanks, but please remove: youth Olympics")
2. Only teams represented are listed, not nationality, fixing cases like Josef Jabor and Dagmar Bílková Y (see e.g. "Josef Jabor Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia")
3. Any non-athlete roles are removed Y (see "participation in another capacity than an athlete (e.g. ciach, referee) as these are also normally not counted as Olympic participations")
4. Created a new "Games" column that links to relevant "nation at" pages for each row Y (see "they don't even link to the "[nation] at [year] [Olympics]" pages where the actual information on them is")

I also wanted to clarify that these pages were not created with a bot. It was actually a painstakingly manual effort for the most part, linking each name to a Wikidata item (that's why there are no links to disambiguation pages) that required thousands of manual clicks / fixes on my part over several weeks to finish. I wrote scripts to help with some parts but they never ran unattended; all output was manually checked. There are structural reasons why a complete list is needed recently given the implementation of WP:NSPORTS2022, but I think the list now serves a useful navigational purpose as well with the links to "nation at" pages so I would be in favor of keeping it.

Given that all the content-based issues are addressed, I'll ping all those who commented on the older version of the lists: Pinging previous commenters (Let'srun—Geschichte—Reywas92—WikiOriginal-9—Fram—BeanieFan11—JoelleJay—Miria~01). Thanks, --Habst (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I striked part of my !vote, although I'm unsure if WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being met here. Still leaning towards draftifying while a larger conversation is held, but I appreciate at least some of the issues raised being fixed. Let'srun (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is more useful now with the specific Country at the Year Olympics links. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing these lists being useful for the average reader due to their size, but even giving the benefit of the doubt on that, do they even meet the WP:LISTCRITERIA, which specifies that wikipedia "should not contain indiscriminate lists"? Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? The list is discriminating because it only selects Olympic competitors. An indiscriminate list would be one without clearly-defined criteria. --Habst (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address the sorting issue, I created a Wikipedia user script to allow you to merge all the lists into one giant list that is sortable (see picture). It adds a button on every one of the "List of Olympic competitors" lists that will complete the list by downloading and merging all the other pages. Of course, it is slow and resource-intensive though I am able to load it (slowly) on an i7-3520M with 8GB RAM from 2012. With a faster computer, it would probably load much quicker.

To use it, add this line to your Special:MyPage/common.js:

importScript('User:Habst/mergeOlympians.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Habst/mergeOlympians.js]]

I get that this isn't commonly done and it's not expected for all readers to use user scripts, but it is an option for those who want to sort the complete list. --Habst (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above, there was some discussion about the length of these pages. Please note that after the recent changes, 4 of these pages are now in the top 10 of longest articles on enwiki, and 15 of the lists are in the top 50 of longest articles.[15] Fram (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, thanks for pointing this out, I split the largest pages so now there are none in the top 10 LongPages. It's also trivial to continue splitting after the AfD until we reach an agreed max length. Is the length per page your only remaining issue with the list? --Habst (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, it's just another good indication why you should have let the draftification stand until this all got resolved (assuming it can be). Now we get splits, splits of splits, creating more and more articles divided at completely random points (most of these lists are still among the largest pages ever created here). No one says "cycling track", "cycling road", ... for the sport, no idea why yu created dreadful redirects like Cycling road at the Olympics to enable this. You still have the Wikidata links for no good reason (if a link is needed for the redlinks, then link to the Olympics website, which is a reliable site, not to a user-generated database of dubious value). And the issues raised by the many others here have merit as well, I'ld like to see you address these (and not with a common.js script). I still don't see why having these lists is better than not having them. Fram (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: The IOC line should certainly be adopted when specifying the sport (discipline). Cycling should be treated the same as other Olympic sports like aquatics, equestrian, volleyball or gymnastics. (see also https://www.olympics.com/en/sports/). Miria~01 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then "Equestrian jumping" shouldn't be used, just "equestrian". And "hockey" instead of "field hockey". Oh, and "baseball softball" instead of "softball". And "baseball 5" instead of "baseball". I wouldn't support these, but at least it would be consistent. Fram (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should be "baseball 5" instead of baseball? It is a discipline debuted only at the Youth Olympics. Nevertheless, we should actually mention the sport discipline in such lists, as is usual in most Olympic articles in wiki. We don't usually write "aquatics" for swimming, water polo or diving.The NOC profiles for Paris 2024 were also always differentiated according to the sports discipline by the IOC, e.g. United States. Miria~01 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forget baseball 5 then, the others are valid. When I look at our Olympics coverage, I see articles like Cycling at the 1956 Summer Olympics which discuss track cycling and road cycling, never "cycling track" and "cycling road", no matter what the IOC uses. Similarly, we have Field hockey at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, not simply "hockey". Basically, we use whatever the Wikipedia standard is, without following the sometimes very strange IOC standards ("hockey" isn't a very strange one, but not one we follow either). Fram (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. Outside of North America, the sport is simply known as "hockey"; I don't think field hockey at the Summer Olympics is actually using the WP:COMMONNAME to be honest. That being said, because I want to achieve consensus the list has always said "field hockey" instead of just "hockey" in all places to be maximally WP:PRECISE. Equestrian jumping, vaulting, eventing, driving, and dressage are all considered different sports (not merely different disciplines of the same sport like e.g. the 100 metres versus 200 metres) so they should be listed separately for sorting. Are there any other sport names you would want to change? --Habst (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Sport and Discipline Technology Codes [16]
OFFICIAL PROGRAMME OF THE OLYMPIC GAMES PARIS 2024 [17]

1) There are various sports, some of which have multiple disciplines, and every discipline can have multiple events. And contrary to @Habst's statement, athletics consists of a single discipline, but which has many events.
2) "Hockey" is the official name by the International Hockey Federation (FIH) and is also simply called in most parts of the world, especially where ice hockey doesn't play a role. Nevertheless, using the name "field hockey" instead of just "hockey" is a good way to avoid confusion and differentiate the sport from ice hockey, as it also done by many secondary sources. However, we must be careful not to force our personal preferences to the point, where we decide something completely against sources. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT should never be an argument why we shouldn't do things.

PS:@Fram If there is a misunderstanding on my part and you are only concerned in the name itself (e.g. "cycling track" instead of "track cycling"), please note that I am happy with both names. What matters to me is a consistent list according to one category (here "sport discipline") and not an arbitrarily broken down list according to personal preference. So, I understood (possibly a misunderstanding) that only '"cycling" should be broken down without disciplines, unlike other sports. Miria~01 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That´s indeed the misunderstanding, so we´re all good now :-) Fram (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, thank you for your feedback and I hope we can reach an agreement before the AfD ends. "Cycling track" and "cycling road" are the official sport names used by the Olympics, see https://www.olympics.com/en/sports/cycling-track/ and https://www.olympics.com/en/sports/cycling-road/, so the redirects do make sense. If you don't agree, you can take those two redirects I created to RfD where I am pretty confident they will be kept. It's definitely not true that "no one says" those terms, but I did just replace them on all lists with "track cycling" and "road cycling" because I want to reach a consensus.

I don't think Wikidata is a "database of dubious value" -- it's a sister project of Wikipedia linked via {{Wikidata red link}} as discussed at Special:Diff/1305540192, unlike Olympics.com which is an external link that should generally not be included inline in articles with some exceptions.

Having read all of this AfD and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Creating a list of Olympic competitors, I think that every issue has been addressed by either me or other editors. I don't think it's fair to say "And the issues raised by the many others here" without naming anything specific.

The positive case is that having a complete list is due on a general-purpose encyclopedia as a reference for those wanting to look up Olympics-related content -- it's currently the best resource for anyone wanting to look up an Olympian without an article. Separately, given that the WP:NSPORTS2022 rollout has only begun in full force recently this year, there is a structural need to have redirect targets for each Olympian and the list provides named anchors for that purpose (the "nation at Olympics" pages are insufficient because they're often incomplete and for multi-time Olympians picking which to target can be unclear). --Habst (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics.com can be used as a reference. Wikidata can't be used as a reference. Having a reference from a reliable source is better than an inline external link surely? As for your other arguments, like I said above, there seem to be potential redirect targets for every Olympian already without the need for these lists. Most can be redirected to "sports in Olympics year" pages or "nation at Olympics year" pages, the multi-time Olympians without notability are much rarer than the single-time Olympians with that issue. Creating such massive lists to deal with so few exceptions (people explicitly deleted at AfD usually) seems to me (and others) to be a bad solution. "I don't think it's fair to say "And the issues raised by the many others here" without naming anything specific." You can read the objections above, feel free to discuss them with these people. Fram (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why Wikidata is not used as a reference for the lists (it was only used to make sure we are linking to the disambiguated page name for each competitor). Having inline external links (e.g. to olympics.com) is usually inappropriate per WP:EL although there are exceptions.

There are definitely not potential redirect targets for every Olympian without these lists; for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Ndinga a suitable target wasn't found acceptable by the community (before these lists were created), and that would apply to any of the thousands of multiple-time Olympians. Many of the "(nation) at (year) Olympics" articles are also incomplete e.g. Willi Heckmann isn't linked at West Germany at the 1976 Summer Olympics so this affects single-time Olympians as well. I estimate the total number of Olympians without suitable redirect targets is in the thousands, although we're only just beginning to find out considering that NSPORTS2022 only started to be implemented en masse quite recently necessitating a list like this.

I have read every comment above and discussed them in depth at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Creating a list of Olympic competitors -- for example see this comment for the discussion about inclusion criteria. Now that we've resolved the length, Youth Olympics, sport names, team/nationality discrepancy, non-athlete roles, links to (nation) at (year) pages, and rationale, are there any other problems you have with the list? I just want to reach a consensus, which will involve compromise, which is the reason why you wanted to draftify in the first place. --Habst (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you don´t agree, you just repeat your position about external links while ly suggestion is to add Olympedia as a reference, instead of using Wikidata as an external link inline. I highly doubt your claim about thousabds of Wikipedians without suitable redirect target, as this would only be for non notable athletes with multiple appearances basically. Anyway, I think I´ll just stop replying here and let others voice their opinions, it is becoming very tedious to have to reoeat some of these points over and over again. The compromise was draftification, which you rejected. So let´s wait and see how this AfD ends. Fram (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some confusion about terminology; I was considering Wikidata as an internal link because it's the sister project of Wikipedia while Olympedia or Olympics.com would be external links. Nearly all linked Wikidata items have interlanguage articles which is helpful for redirects to point to, and even for those that don't it's a helpful source of information. There are cautions about linking to Wikidata within articles, but linking in lists is usually fine per Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikidata fallback link.

Sadly I think my estimation of a few thousand Olympians is probably an undercount based on some sampling I've been doing. It doesn't only affect non-notable athletes with multiple appearances; for example in lots of nation articles like West Germany at the 1976 Summer Olympics all of the canoeing, diving, equestrian, gymnastics, handball, judo, rowing, sailing, shooting, swimming, weightlifting, and wrestling athletes aren't mentioned on the page, so this list would be the only suitable redirect target for many of those athletes even if they only competed at one Olympics.

If I were to remove all links to Wikidata items with {{Wikidata red link}}, would you or others !vote to keep the list? The point of draftification was to come to a consensus, but I thought discussing this at AfD would be a better venue so that we could agree within a shorter timeframe and so that all of the incoming Wikidata-linked redirects with history to these pages would not be deleted. I am very eager to achieve consensus even if it means removing content from the lists. --Habst (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ndinga AfD does not at all preclude creating a new redirect to one of the suggested targets, which can be done for all other non-notable multi-Olympians. The "fix" for sorting is not going to be used by any readers, so is not actually a fix to the problem of these lists not being useful to browse or navigate with. Just split the list by country or create a list of only the multi-Olympians. JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've tried to game-theory out the possible outcomes in this case. It would definitely both preclude preserving the page history and force an arbitrary choice of which "year" page to link to – which would make the redirect highly susceptible to being RfD'ed. And it seems unlikely that a WP:REFUND admin would restore an article deleted at AfD, where a redirect was explicitly rejected, in order to convert it to a redirect. Plenty of readers use user scripts – I wrote the script above primarily to help you and Reywas92 above but I think the list is justified on its own even without the combining script. --Habst (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without it being explicitly tested, I don't think it is fair to cast that assumption. In addition, it should be noted that WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies, and just because some Olympians are notable doesn't mean that a list of them is compliant with WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I was responding to an assumption (that a redirect could be created even when it was rejected at an AfD), which part of either the original assumption or my response do you think is unrealistic?

Briefly speaking, I think that a list of Olympians is WP:DUE in a general-purpose encyclopedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE's four prongs (descriptions, lyrics, statistics, software updates) all explicitly don't apply to this list, so given the due argument as well I'm not sure how we can say that applies. Notability for lists is based on the group, and certainly Olympians as a group are notable (see the mountains of SIGCOV written about them as a group). --Habst (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the four prongs, which don't cover everything that can be indiscriminate. Rather, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with contextualizing lists, which is why I added {{List of Olympic competitors intro}} to every page. Considering the English Wikipedia hosts thousands of Olympics-related articles, it makes sense to host a list of competitors as a navigational aid. The Olympians listed aren't just verifiable; they are, as a group, notable. --Habst (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very useful list and Habst has worked very hard in addressing all the concerns that have been brought up. I see no benefit to removing these lists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:HARDWORK. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the proposal is simply to send these over to draft space for a time so they can be worked on further, and not necessarily to remove them. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, surprisingly usefulness is actually a relevant criteria in deletion discussions for lists per WP:NLIST: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept". Part of the issue with moving them to draftspace is a purely technical one; the redirects with page history targeted at the lists would then have to be deleted (because we can't have redirects to draftspace) and they wouldn't be restored if the list makes it back to mainspace.

But more substantially, can you name one item that can be "worked on further" in an {{edit request}}-like format (i.e., change X to Y)? Issues pointed out above were already addressed with a new list format and I'm really struggling to find even one actionable item unaddressed. --Habst (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making the lists by sport and/or country, depending on what is determined to work best for actual readers, and providing info on what event(s) the subjects competed in, rather than just listing the sport. As it stands, any redirect to these lists actually causes the reader to lose information compared to when the subject is redirected to only one of the Olympic games they competed in (if they were in more than one). Let'srun (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion; I think that having a one-dimensional list (indexed just by name) doesn't preclude also having by-sport lists. The issue is that the scenario you propose (redirecting multi-Olympians to one arbitrary participation) is frequently rejected by other Wikipedians as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Ndinga. Now that each "country at" page is linked as well, no information is lost because readers can simply follow those links while even in the few cases where one "country at" page was targeted for a multi-Olympian, readers wouldn't have easily been able to find the other. --Habst (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Although draftify is acceptable, at some point we have to sit up and take notice that this is not what Wikipedia is about. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of NOTDATABASE supports deletion here? Is this a Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics database, Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or Exhaustive logs of software updates? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be the first sentence. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So, what part of this list is not "in context"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What part of this is "with explanations"? What part of this is referenced to independent sources? What part of this is not an indiscriminate collection? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This is an alphabetic list of Olympians who competed in a medal event at a modern Olympic Games. Only athletes that competed in at least one senior-level Olympic Games are included, with each athlete's Olympic participation listed along with their sports and nations represented. A pretty clear explanation of what the list is, with two independent sources. And a well-defined list of competitors is not "indiscriminate". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Being an Olympian already is the discriminate part. It's the highest level sporting competition in the world. It's certainly more discriminate than every floating rock in the universe. If this list was created decades ago and only had 50,000 people on it, would it be okay then? At some point, every list on Wikipedia will become "indiscriminate" just due to the passage of time. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No. No, it isn't. Being an olympic medalist might be, although the utility of a page of all medalists, without context or explanation remains questionable; but a list of every single competitor ever? That is certainly an indiscriminate list. Moreover where did it come from? Not a human editor. A bot had to create these pages from an existing database. In some countries databases are protected by database right, and this creation from a single database would breach that right. Whether that is an issue here or not is one for the lawyers, but without a doubt the creation of structured data from the structured data in a database is questionable ethically. We have taken someone else's work and simply presented it as a different form of structured data. Why? Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not replace the secondary source, the database this was generated from. Neither are we adding context and explanations. We are just throwing out a load of structured data. It is indiscriminate, unmaintainable, unverified. In short, this page should not be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for the feedback. It was actually compiled by humans in the same way that every other list on Wikipedia is compiled, cross-checked with several sources, and backed up by the work that existing Wikipedians have done creating articles for nearly every Olympian, and I only wrote a script to help with the formatting; there was no bot involved, and I've reviewed all entries manually over a period of several weeks. 70 pages sounds like a lot but it's possible to get through in a few weeks.
  
  To be clear, are you alleging that this list is literally illegal to exist? If so, I think it's not fair to say something like that and then say it's for lawyers to decide; this is simply not an accurate interpretation of database rights per meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights. I've started a discussion on your user page about this narrow legal issue because I don't really think it's relevant to the AfD.
  
  There are ethical concerns involved with deletion of Olympic competitor biographies which spurred the creation of this list, but we have to go by policies and guidelines. As explained above, the list isn't indiscriminate, I think it is maintainable, and every row is verifiable with a link. --Habst (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  To be clear, are you alleging that this list is literally illegal to exist? That is not what I said. I said that it is unethical to reproduce someone's collation and that it may be illegal under database right or equivalent laws, but that would need an IP lawyer to consider. And no, every row is not verifiable, because Wikipedia pages can never verify Wikipedia pages. There is not a single reference anywhere in the table, and the whole thing is just a reproduction of the database at Olympics.com. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Please see Special:Diff/1307905032, where the nominator says "No, these lists are not a copyright issue or otherwise speedy deletable". On Wikipedia, we are not required to have an IP lawyer review pages in order to keep them; that would not be a workable solution and there's no legal basis for saying creating a simple list is a violation of the law. Because of that, it's not true that this AfD is "not suitable for non admin closure".
  
  There are references on every list page in addition to the links on each row, so the lists fulfill WP:V. If any item is somehow challenged, an additional reference or note can be added supporting that as WP:V permits. --Habst (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Where did you obtain the collation? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I went through each Olympic competitor page on Wikipedia and assigned them a unique ID. I then matched that ID with Wikidata (for interlanguage links), Olympedia, and Olympics.com where applicable. There's nothing wrong with compiling lists like this; the pages are mostly already on Wikipedia in PetScan. Like I said, it was a painstakingly manual process that took weeks to complete mostly due to disambiguating. --Habst (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that would seem to obviate the immediate concern that this breaches database right. Unless the articles and wikidata were derived wholesale from a database, of course. But in that case it is not this list that wholesale copies an existing collation. This would merely be a derivative work of the copy. It remains unsourced and all the other concerns remain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't unsourced as WP:V is met, and the idea that any simple list on Wikipedia could breach database rights does not have any legal basis. At some point, I think continuing to press this and claiming that I may have broken the law by creating the list becomes a legal threat (acknowledging that reporting valid copyright violations are not legal threats).

I respect your other contributions so for that reason I think we should focus on substantive issues in the AfD. What other concerns do you have? --Habst (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. If you think I made a legal threat, take it to ANI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I have never used Wikipedia as a source in an article. I don't think you made a legal threat; only that it could become one if you or anyone were to continue repeatedly saying someone may be breaking the law through normal Wikipedia editing. If you really think that, you could follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations#All of article violates copyright, which I don't think would be productive because there is no legal basis to say compiling a list of Olympians violates the law. --Habst (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm also surprised by your claim about the databases. The Olympedia database hasn't been updated since January 1, 2024[18], and probably won't be in the near future. It means all athletes from the 2024 Games aren't listed and further athletes from future games won't be there either. The IOC database in olympics.com is clearly incomplete (even athletes' with medals are missing) and is a mess overall. The only list that's most comprehensive, so to speak, is this one on Wikipedia. We should actually consider ourselves lucky that such a list can be found in an encyclopedia that can't be found nowhere else except in fragments. Miria~01 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle There is nothing wrong with this. WP:NOTDATABASE doesn't apply since this is valid reference information. The fact they're long isn't a huge problem. I want to note that I have absolutely no problem if they are draftified and re-worked, possibly alphabetical by sport, possibly by country, but there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have this information somewhere on Wikipedia, as long as it is validly referenced. Therefore, I do support draftifying/some AtD as long as there is a path to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I support actually draftifying them, as currently I don't see these lists as being useful navigational aids for the majority of the readers (i.e. anyone not in WikiProject Olympics). I think sorting by sport makes the most sense, but draftifying allows for a more nuanced and careful debate to happen than when these articles are in mainspace. Let'srun (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion about whether these lists are lawfully acceptable or should be speedy deleted as some copyright/creative compilation list. A complete non-starter which drags on and on. Closing admin is welcome to read this and disagree with me, but I doubt it. Fram (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments on Legality of the List

Moved from User talk:Sirfurboy

– Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion from my talk page because it is directly relevant to this AfD and will benefit from others seeing it and able to comment Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to start a separate thread to discuss the legal concerns you raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak). I don't think this is an fair interpretation of database rights; by this logic, doing a {{PetScan|cat=Olympic competitors|catdepth=10}} would be illegal because it lists the same Olympians that several databases do. Additionally, database rights aren't recognized in the U.S. where WMF is headquartered.

That being said, I am interested in the theory behind this so I'm open to looking at prior cases. Are you aware of any times when this has been an issue on Wikipedia? --Habst (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you reproduce a database in its entirety in another database (Wikipedia is a database), presenting that data as structured data derived from the original database without explanation or synthesis, it is likely that you have breached database right or equivalent IP laws in any jurisdiction (it is under copyright in the US). Whether you have breached the law or not, however, is irrelevant. It is also unethical. Those who created the collation should not have the collation lifted and dumped into structured data elsewhere on the web. That is their work, and we now deprive them of the traffic to their collation by ensuring our higher page ranked duplicate of their collation will be found first. I know what I would think about that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Whether I have personally broken the law is of course very relevant to the legal concerns you raised, so I'm going to respond to this primarily -- I don't think that's true at all. The list of Olympians is recorded in multiple "databases" (including hundreds of newspapers), not just one -- and simple facts like sports results are not copyrightable in the U.S. per "Subject matter of copyright". Could the Olympics sue the New York Times for publishing a list of competitors/results in their paper?

Under this logic, I think that simply linking to this PetScan would be illegal, as it lists 150,000 Olympians.

Re: ethics, per WP:AIM Wikipedia is founded upon the idea of sharing knowledge for the betterment of society. If doing this was illegal in any way, I agree there could be questions, but legal creation of lists with encyclopedic value isn't something most would consider immoral -- we do not need to ask the Olympics for permission before publishing Olympic results pages on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. US copyright law has a similar protection to Database Right. The US Copyright Act says that compilations are protected as creative works. A compilation is a "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." This is an equivalent protection to database right, and it means a page that wholly reproduces a database is likely to breach that act. And so it should, as I've said. We should not be stealing their traffic by stealing their work.

Linking to PetScan is certainly not illegal, because a link does not create a copy. Copyright protects the right to make copies of a work. Merely linking to a work is not a breach of copyright. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are correct. You cannot copyright a fact, and we are simply hosting factual information that someone participated in the Olympics. There is no creativity in a database which merely lists simple compilations of facts. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See: [19]. It is not the fact that is copyrighted, it is the compilation. The compilation is the creative work. If this page is not deleted, it needs a lawyer to look at it carefully and decide whether it can be defended. We are not free to copy databases. They may contain known facts, but they are also a compilation, which is a protected work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The compilation needs to have a creative element above and beyond simply listing ordinarily compiled facts to be eligible for copyright. That is clearly not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: How can this list be a copy of a database when all other databases are significantly more incomplete than this one? It is a baseless claim that is simply thrown out here. A simple random check of athletes in the first ten Olympic Games makes this very clear. Miria~01 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could still be a copy of multiple databases, as appears to be the case here. Personally I am persuaded by what Sirfurboy is saying here, and it is yet another reason these lists should be removed from mainspace, at least in the short term. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of multiple databases? That's not how it works at all. No one can possibly claim copyright over a simple database of who appeared in the Olympics! Sports leagues have often tried to control this. MLB doesn't own their statistics, the English Football League can't even copyright their fixture list (after years in the courts.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an independent created compilation work by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. That says it all. Multiple sources, databases, and Wikipedia entries on the category were consulted to compile this list, and it clearly represents independent work.
@Sirfurboy assumed that this list is a copy of the olymics.com database, which of course is not true,
see e.g. medalists (two medalists at arts comp. and some random athletes with won medals from 1904) not existing in the database of olympics.com:

And there are several hundred (perhaps even thousands without medals) missing there with and many are there, but information is incomplete. Miria~01 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of the concept of derivative works? The Olympics.com database is the major copyrightable element of this page, is it not? It is immaterial whether a few extras have been added. Again, stop making assumptions about how you think this works. We will need an IP lawyer to look at this if we want to keep it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, if anything then Olympedia is the main source that has been used, definitely not olympics.com. Miria~01 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics absolutely, completely, definitively do not own who participated in the Olympics, and that is not a reason for a deletion. If you think it's a copyvio, file a copyvio report. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is the collation that is a protected work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this highly questionable definition, countless lists here on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, like List of UEFA Champions League top scorers or List of NASA missions. No one can prohibit the compilation of publicly accessible data in lists. If a "specific precedent exists", please present it here.

It's quite amusing that even though you had a false idea about how the list was created, namely not as a copy of the oylmpics.com database (which is complete garbage with countless errors and missing information), you double down without giving any evidence to your claim that this list violates intellectual property. Just so you understand, even technically to copy the data at all, one would have to hack into the IOC server to extract the data from the backend, since the output on the website doesn't create a list of athletes, but only individual names that one has to explicitly enter in the search bar. Miria~01 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again, no it's not. The collation has to be more than a mere listing of simple facts. We're not going to get anywhere with this, but if you really think this is a copyright violation - it is not - please use our copyvio mechanism. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a mechanism to report them all other than to tag them for speedy deletion, which would be disruptive in an AfD and tricky considering the number, which is why I have raised it here so that a closing admin can take note and appropriate action. Please also bear in mind this note to closer - this AfD is not suitable for non admin closure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is not suitable for non-admin closure? It's also not difficult to tag them all for speedy deletion -- I want to emphasize it would be a bad idea because they're not eligible for CSD and the tags would be removed by an admin, but technically not tricky.

On Wikipedia, we are not obligated to have IP lawyers review pages before deciding to keep them. That is an unachievable standard and at some point continuing to harp on this stating I 'may' have broken the law with no basis becomes a legal threat (complaints of valid copyright violations are not legal threats). I respect your contributions and wish you could just make an argument based on the merits of the list rather than saying that I may have broken the law by creating a list of Olympic competitors. --Habst (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument on the basis of the list is in my !vote above. An admin close is required, as any close may require admin tools. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Why is an admin close required? --Habst (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See directly above. On another point, would you please explain how you obtained the collation that you used here? Although it is actually largely moot as to whose collation it is (which is why I did not answer the point made by Miria~01 above), because database right / copyright accrues to the collation, regardless of who collated it, it is pertinent if (a) the collation is licensed under an open license, and (b) if we are actually using a collation that we have not even cited. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstas

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

Only one with a stand alone article. Redirect to Sam Konstas per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Disambiguations, Greece, and Australia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not a great place for primary topic discussions, WP:RM should be used instead, because a name index can still remain even if one topic is chosen as primary (maybe there are other entries that just aren't documented there yet).

The other Konstas entry seems to match the guideline on items without standalone articles. It links to a player at an Olympic event, so there is some obvious potential.

The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level. Why would the average English reader strongly associate this name with this person?

A Google Books search for the term shows me nothing in particular, a lot of ambiguity.

It seems more likely that the average reader wouldn't recognize this term at all. Short-circuiting to one person instead of presenting this short list doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level.. Quick fact check; Sam Konstas has played Test Cricket at the Senior Level. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I skimmed the article and apparently missed that. Maybe this information would be obvious to someone who is more in-universe in this regard, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a secondary source on cricket, or any other sport, or any other field of endeavor. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy I get what you are saying, but I don't think citing google books is a good example as many authors of books won't be notable. I also understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. I still stand by my argument that Sam is the primary topic. He's not Messi, Ronaldo or Michael Jordan type notable. Not even as notable as someone like Sam Kerr. But Sam Konstas before his Test debut got was considered an exciting prospect and arguably got the most attention of anyone on the Boxing Day Test. The other is a water polo player who played at the 1972 Olympics. Basically I would argue he was just considered a part of an Olympic squad. Don't think he was notable for anything besides being there. Sam on the other hand got a lot of attention for playing Un Orthodox shots. It's a good rationale but I am still convinced Sam is the primary topic. Also with regards to books, books on stuff like war are going to have the names of many non notable people in a war. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be looking for indicators of significance, such as for example some relevant biographer's secondary source about this person. It's hard to expect for this to exist at such a young age, and likewise it's hard to expect that the average reader associates this surname with this person.

How do we normally measure attention in this topic area, and how does that compare to worldwide general measurements of the same? I don't know.

Google Trends for the search terms show two spikes of interest, both of which are past now, and interest is miniscule now.

That website also showed me the topic of Giorgos Konstas, which we don't have documented here, but it's plausible that we could.[20]

I see evidence that in recent times people have looked up the the surname probably in reference to this one person, but no real evidence that this is an actual primary topic according to the guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawn: agree per Joy. I think you should nominate this on WP:RM. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let @Joy and @Royiswariii know that you might want to consider changing your vote as an RM would not work, because if a disambiguation page was created, it would be a case of WP:ONEOTHER in which it redirects to one, and only one other person has the surname. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire rationale that I posted. The procedural issue isn't really the most relevant part, even if it's listed first. --Joy (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to failing notability criteria as a surname page. Then it can be redirected as a primary redirect if necessary. The argument put forth by Joy is only relevant if this page is notable, which it clearly is not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm a minor anthroponymy index might not be (obviously) notable according to the WP:N article guideline, but that guideline isn't meant to apply to it because it's not a regular article. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. which is why we include these sorts of indices even if they're not articles. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A set index article is a form of list, which falls under list-based notability criteria. Something violating that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am unaware of a policy where set index pages are an exception to that rule, and 5P1 can simply mean that infoboxes contain almanac-like or gazette-like information alongside the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not really just a form of a list. Have you ever seen WP:Set index#Common selection criteria? The concept of it being a list of notable items has been documented there since 2019 (probably, that's from my quick search, could be older).

The idea of these sorts of set indexes often being very similar to disambiguation pages, hence not necessarily just list articles, has likewise been discussed at length, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment in 2024 but we didn't reach a clear conclusion on what to do. --Joy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to have its fair share of people arguing essentially the same thing that I am - that a set index article requires context and therefore notability (i.e. something like Herman (name)). While it can certainly be a list of names, The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. In the absence of consensus, it reverts to the status quo, which is that name lists are not a form of disambiguation. It would need people to agree that they are, which didn't happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We habitually add name lists into disambiguation pages, this is long documented in the WP:D guideline and there is no missing consensus there. The formatting changes to make this Konstas set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I disagree with the idea that just because we didn't reach a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about the matter of navigation pages in that discussion, that we should just toss all that into the wind. That would truly be dismissive of the volunteer time invested in it, and it would be suspiciously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. We never had a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about a bunch of things expressed e.g. in the WP:D guideline text (that's the one I've investigated the most so I say this with a bit of experience), and yet we generally recognize most of it as applicable. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we list people in the credits on disambiguation pages and redirect those entries to the corresponding film/game etc. article? No. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really worth having this in the encyclopedia. Surnames should normally not be redirects, not being a natural search term for most people. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Contents

Lists of people

List of Lviv rabbis

List of Saint Kitts and Nevis people by net worth

List of Liechtenstein people by net worth

List of Earth-Two characters

Alphonso I of Spain

List of individuals who served as student leaders in schools

List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation

List of Ordinaries of the Personal Ordinariates

Preetika (name)

Dittfach

Asian Hall of Fame

List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak)

Konstas

Proposed deletions