Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Archive 13#Add Carl Bildt

{{atopg|status=pass|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)}}

His death seems to have been a significant deal 40 years ago, but I'm not sure if he should be considered one of top 11 most vital victims of a crime. I had never heard of this story before seeing the article.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  17:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Carlwev below. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Tragic and notable enough for an article, but perhaps not enough to be one of the most vital people in history. "If" this part of history was thought to be important, the hijacking has an article itself, Achille Lauro hijacking and seems more significant.  Carlwev  17:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Archive top red|status =Retained|result=not removed, 2-4 _pbp 12:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)}}

We should probably list more non-Western visual artists (though he was based in Istanbul), but his influence seems mostly regional.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, I know this is technically already passing, but after some thought, we should probably keep this guy. Non-Western artists are under 1/22 of the entire section, and he's the only contemporary we list in the miniature tradition (at least 500 years old, spanning from SE Europe to India). Along with {{VA link|Hossein Behzad}} (and maybe indirectly {{VA link|Abanindranath Tagore}}), he's only 1 of 2 or 3 we list since the 17th century. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop}}

Hi everyone, I'll keep this quick. I just wanted to check if there was a loose agreement on where we want to take these categories next. They're hanging out below quota but it seems most agree we should still be cutting overall.

Do we mostly just want these categories to refine at the current size? Do they need a major rethink in some other way? Or is there any interest in shrinking them further (I would personally support that)? Note: this does not imply a quota proposal and I personally wouldn't recommend one soon. It's purely a coordination thing. Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think that the current size is quote right for both "Artists, musicians, and composers" and for "Entertainers etc." There's a need to cut from both categories, because both of them have problems with a overtly broad scope and contain a few too many non-vital people from niche topics (visual artists and non-English popular music come to mind). Also the amount of actors and actresses seems disproportionally large and hasn't yet received enough trimming that it would need. On the other hand, the list lacks vital behind-the-scenes film people (I made proposals for cinematographers, but we lack still editors, sound designers, special effects and make-up people etc. that I would like to see represented) and also we lack a lot of vital non-Western actors and actresses from former Soviet Union, South and East Asian cinema. I would also believe that we can find enough visual artists or musicians that are omitted for any cuts we can do to those sections. Makkool (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::OK, since nobody else chimed in and what you said makes sense, we'll err on the side of caution for now. Thanks again for the update. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

He is the only Bandy player we list, but I reckon we could add someone else down the road. Even his Russian article is quite short.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Bandy got demoted down from level 4 to 5, so there's less reason to include a player Makkool (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom and Makkool's rationale. GauchoDude (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=pass|result=Remove 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)}}

While initially a flashpoint, his death did not halt diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and North Korea during Trump's first term. Hard to say if this will be viewed as significant 10-20 years from now.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0}}

Reading the article listed under criminals. He was blind and as a child he discovered he could whistle in a phone and get free long distance calls. He charged others at college $1 each for the service and an operator reported him and he was fined $25. This is as much "crime" as the article reports. Outside crime He also set up a phone line and gained some licences in radio and telephone communication, and done a little charity work for children, which isn't very vital either. Kind of interesting, and I guess someone was trying to add diverse people to the list but he in no way vital to me. The crime or skill is called phreaking, he was the first to discover it, but I wouldn't think it was a vital discovery. The article on phreaking itself isn't even listed and seems more important, has more languages, views and text in the article than the first guy who did it.

;Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  03:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Phreaking itself is probably at the very edge of V5, so we probably don't need a person famous for it. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 11:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom and Kevinishere15's rationale. GauchoDude (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Listed under criminals, only exists one other language. Kind of a businessman that worked in horse racing and casino gambling. There were accusations of murder, assault, race-fixing, bribery, illegal gambling and involvement in the drug trade but he was only ever fined $5000 for bet fixing and that's it. His legal or alleged illegal dealings do not sound vital at all.

;Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  03:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support--向史公哲曰 (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{archive top red|status=failed |result=not added, 2-2. Last vote a month and a half ago _pbp 12:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I don't know much about aviation, so I stumbled upon this page and am not sure whether this guy belongs. I will nominate him.

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support to Miscellaneous -> Explorers (that's where we list {{VA link|Amelia Earhart}}). Simple brainstorming seems reason enough with Miscellaneous still under quota. We can always revisit when it comes time to trim the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Looking through the category :Category:American aviation pioneers, I see a lot of people. I Don't think he is particuarlly noteworthy compared to everyone on that list. Take it up a level to :Category:Aviation pioneers and I think he becomes a bit lost in the croud rather then standing out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Two interwikis, article created in 2020 twelve years after his death --> not VA5. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top red|status=failed|result=Not added, 2-4, last vote a month ago _pbp 12:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)}}

James Bevel was the co-equal with Martin Luther King Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement, he was the movement's main strategist and architect, both as a student leader from 1960 to 1962 and then as the Director of Direct Action and Nonviolent Education of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) from 1963 to 1968. Bevel strategized and then directed the main movement events of the era, including the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade, the Selma Voting Rights Movement (and its Selma to Montgomery march), and the Chicago Open Housing Movement. Looking at the entries, Bevel could replace any number of the listed activists if one must be replaced to include him. His accomplishments and movement contributions place him, in my opinion, in the top level of people who shaped American and world history, along with Dr. King, Jefferson, Madison, etc.

;Support

1. As nom. I think he was already listed as a vital article but seems to have been removed at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support at level 5, probably oppose at level 4. I agree with the arguments below, especially on how "American" our list is, but we list several thousand people (many of them American) who I consider less impactful/vital then this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He is barely mentioned in the actual {{VA link|Civil rights movement}} article, and isn't part of the Big Six. Also, he only has seven interwikis, which suggests he has not left a significant enough actual global impact. He is not one of the 50,000 most important subjects of all time, or one of the 10,000 most important people to ever live. Furthermore, we list plenty of American activists already, including most significant other ones from the civil rights movement. In-fact, we should list less American figures. Not more. No way he qualifies for Level 4, let alone 5. As a side note, I managed to find the discussion where he was removed previously, and I pretty much agree with everything that was said in the removal. λ NegativeMP1 03:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per NegativeMP1 and per previous discussion. In particular, I dispute the claim that he was co-equal to MLK. I have a history degree _pbp 09:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose, sorry, I don't see it, agree with others' opposing comments.  Carlwev  17:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
4. I commend your dedication to chronicling Bevel's life. But the vital articles project is driven on consensus and data as best as we can collect it, and the numbers, the votes, and even Bevel's own biography don't seem to achieve the baseline level of vitality we require of activists. What I would recommend is perhaps proposing a swap and arguing that a listed article is less vital to the project than Bevel, as opposed to a straight add. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

To the comments of {{u|NegativeMP1}}, you just don't know Bevel's work. He and King were the top-tier of the Civil Rights Movement. As to one specific where you misunderstand topic criteria, the Big Six were the six individuals who chaired the organizations who organized one event, the March on Washington. Bevel did not chair SCLC, that was Dr. King's job. Bevel's actions in the Birmingham campaign and Birmingham Children's Crusade actually were what made SCLC call the March on Washington. I was not aware of the 2024 discusion you linked to, and would have refuted them. Yes, people haven't heard of James Bevel as a household name, he is the most "hidden" major figure in American history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:"{{xt|You just don't know Bevel's work.}}" What work? If anything, his "work" amounts to nothing more than American history trivia. Again, allow me to reiterate: MLK Jr. has 175 "interwikis", which is a very major factor that allows users active here to roughly estimate how relevant a subject is on a global level. Bevel has 7. Pageviews are another aspect many people look at: in the past month, MLK Jr. has had 717,000~ page views. Bevel has had barely 7,000. And you're arguing that both of them are on the same level of impact and importance to all of human history. A subject being a niche figure (which you admit to) in American history is not enough to be listed on a project meant to represent the whole world. Bevel is not important enough to be one of the 10,000 most influential people to have ever lived. And at V4, which you say you want him to be at, that would imply he is one of the 1,000 or so most important people of all time. λ NegativeMP1 04:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::Bevel has not been focused on by major media as they focused on Dr. King. That doesn't mean that his contributions to American and world history are any less than Dr. King's. They were co-equals in the Civil Rights Movement. Bevel became the main strategist of the 1960-1962 student movement which was overtaking SCLC and the other organizations in accomplishments to complete their goal of removing legalizing segregation in the United States. In 1962 King called Bevel to meet him, and together they teamed up, with no restrictions on either's actions, for Bevel to move from strategizing and organizing within the student movement to run SCLC's nonviolent direct action activities. From then on King and Bevel went on to complete the task that they both agreed to work towards, resulting in the 1963, 1965, and 1968 Civil Rights Acts. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe, just maybe, could it be that the reason textbooks and articles don't cover him is that he's not as important as you make him out to be? You seem to be relatively alone in thinking he is a co-equal to King. _pbp 13:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::No, that's not the reason. To get into the reasons would be both original research and semi-guesswork, but, no. The sublime neglect of James Bevel in the media - his character wasn't even presented in a television or feature film until the 2014 film Selma - would be like asking why we are just now hearing about Thomas Jefferson, and is worthy itself of academic and cultural study. As for being alone in that opinion, although Thomas Ricks and David Garrow have hinted around and come close, that's why I haven't added it to the Civil Rights Movement article (but wouldn't remove it and would argue for its use there if someone else links the references). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• {{u|Purplebackpack89}}, noticed it was you who initiated the discussion to remove Bevel from this list. May I ask why you did that, your initial reasoning? At the time did you realize that Bevel initiated, organized, directed, and taught nonviolence to the participants of SCLC's and the CRM's most successful and historically significant 1960s actions (the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade, the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement and its Selma to Montgomery march, the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement, in addition to his major work and accomplishments in the Nashville Student Movement, the Mississippi movement, and the anti-Vietnam war movement)? That you have a history degree should assist you in researching these and other facts about Bevel, then hopefully you may reconsider your opposition. As for the list, I see it includes Coretta Scott King. A wonderful woman, but far from the most important woman involved in the CRM (that would be Bevel's wife Diane Nash, followed by Ella Baker and Dorothy Cotton, and for early individual events, the duo of Claudette Colvin and the already included Rosa Parks). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You can read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_3#Remove_James_Bevel the entire discussion right here]. As I said there, I don't think he's one of the most important leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, certainly not an equal to MLK Jr. As Negative mentioned, he's not mentioned much in the Civil Rights Movement's Wikipedia article, nor the chapters devoted to civil rights in most textbooks. _pbp 13:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::"I don't think he's one of the most important leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s". Seriously {{u|Purplebackpack89}}? Then who do you think initiated, directed, and organized the main Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s? As for the prior discussion, I don't see a discussion, just a few words. Maybe people trusted you as the nominator, I don't edit or follow the topics here. But thinking that Bevel wasn't a major figure in the CRM ignores historical fact. As for being equal to Dr. King in the movement, that goes to their roles. Dr. King was the public face of the movement, James Bevel was its strategist, director, and organizer. After his major successes in the student movement (major work in the Nashville sit-in, co-organized the continuation of the Freedom Rides, initiated and directed his Nashville Open Theater Movement, co-initiated and directed most of the Mississippi movement, etc.) and in Birmingham (his Birmingham Children's Crusade) he became SCLC's Director of Direct Action, and moved its successes from place to place (Selma, Chicago, then he and King joined the anti-Vietnam war movement). This is just starting to be a real discussion, if you'd like to continue, unlike the couple of sentences and incorrect good faith reasonings that you link to that removed Bevel from a level-5 designation. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC) edited and re-pinged from an earlier post
• :::Who do I think directed the Civil Rights Movement? {{VA link|Martin Luther King Jr.}}, {{VA link|A. Philip Randolph}}, {{VA link|Bayard Rustin}}, the third of which survived removal because the Rustin movie came out around the time of the nomination. Randolph in particular I consider more significant than Bevel; he was leading the March on Washington Movement when Bevel was about six years old, and I credit the integration of war industries and the Armed Forces primarily to him. _pbp 13:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Randolph is a towering figure in movement history, and should have his own statue somewhere in a prominent location. Bevel and King agreed on the movement's activities after Bevel joined SCLC, although both had independent freedom of action within it even after Bevel's SCLC partnership. A quote that sums up much of their working relationship comes when Bevel tried to talk King out of going to Memphis in 1968: King is quoted in Taylor Branch's 2006 At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965–1968 (2006) "You don't like to work on anything that isn't your own idea," King said, "Bevel, I think you owe me one." Randolph wanted to do the March on Washington, but its actual timeline placement came after Bevel was all set to march the children of Birmingham down the highway to Washington to talk to John Kennedy about ending legalized segregation, and that was the straw that gave the U.S. the outline and promise of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and for King and SCLC to join others calling for doing Randolph's long-anticipated D.C. event. Thanks for asking, I haven't done many of these discussions, although some, on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|Aurangzebra}}, I'd ask you to consider striking much of your comment. I have never cited an unpublished work, have never been blocked for a COI, and as a subject matter expert on Bevel's 1960s history, there is no conflict of interest (a major difference on Wikipedia). I wouldn't have come to this page if I didn't know about Bevel's work and its importance to American history, the Civil Rights Movement, and his place as a nonviolent activist (equal to Gandhi, King, and I'd add Alice Paul). But I do know, and was quite surprised when finding out in 1983, for at the time I too had never heard of him. The reason I opened this discussion is that the article was at level 5, then removed by an editor who nommed the topic probably because they had not heard of James Bevel, followed by support for that nomination by editors who'd never heard of him. Fame is not a criteria of this list as far as I know. The public presence of Dr. King overshadows James Bevel's work - which is understandable and actually designed. King needed Bevel to initiate, direct, and organize the nonviolent direct actions of the movement that he was the public face of, and Bevel needed King as the public spokesperson of those events in order to achieve their agreed-upon goals. In any case, I think a striking of much of your comment is in order and, because of that misunderstanding, please consider doing a study of Bevel and his relationship to the Civil Rights Movement and maybe reconsider your oppose reasoning. As for substituting a name or six, pick any of them except for Dr. King and you'll be correct. But there is no need to strike any of them and I'd actually add Diane Nash, as the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement was important enough as a seismic societal shift to enable many individuals to be represented on such a listing. Thanks for bringing up your concerns, although please make sure they are accurate. (posted earlier but re-signed to edit and re-ping, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|Carlwev}}, I'd ask that you please do a deeper dive into Bevel's history than a quick look at the discussion. Apparently adding and subtracting topics here require 60%, so you tipping the scales should at least, I would hope that you'd agree, come from a place of knowledge, study, and clarity about a subject. Maybe start with the Garrow quote linked just below. If you are uninterested in doing so, please reconsider commenting here? Those seem the fairest things to do, either way. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Another major quote. First, be aware that David Garrow is one of the two or three major Civil Rights Movement historians. Then read this 2015 statement by Garrow. In his statement he does not even mention Bevel's Birmingham Children's Crusade, which turned the Birmingham campaign from a running-out-of-gas protest into an iconic event in American and world history and in the history of activism (the topic of this discussion). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Do you mind not WP:BLUDGEONING both here and on other peoples talk pages? As I've already said on the latter page, my opinion on this matter is final, and I am almost certain the other editors who have voted oppose so far are in the same boat as I am. Thanks. λ NegativeMP1 17:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{u|NegativeMP1}}, this is a discussion, and to have a full discussion of such an important issue means adding information and continuing to refute opposing editors reasoning. Your opinion being final seems very premature to me and contrary to the presented facts. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::This goes back to something I said on my talk page: you are unwilling to take an oppose vote as a final answer, and you think that anybody who opposes lacks knowledge. I'm still very concerned that Bevel doesn't get much play in textbooks or even other Wikipedia articles (and a great deal of the play he DOES get was added by you yourself). And your comments haven't allayed my concerns.
• :::Furthermore, Randy, while you are the most knowledgeable about Bevel, you are the LEAST IMPARTIAL and MOST INVESTED.
• :::Finally, in regard to Garrow, I a) would not necessarily say that there are only three major Civil Rights historians, and b) didn't have to read his Wikipedia bio very far to find that one of the things he's most noted for is trying to discredit MLK Jr., something in part he did by crediting the movement to Bevel and not MLK. Garrow may be useful in certain ways, but the ONE area in which he seems to be the MOST problematic is weighing vitality of the various civil rights leaders. _pbp 04:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Had to read David Garrow's page to see what you meant, Bevel is not mentioned on it. Garrow's controversy seems to have occurred in the late 2010's, actually years after we last made contact (although he did suggest that Thomas Ricks use myself and my work as a Bevel source, which we worked on during his 2022 book). Garrow printed one of my 1983 papers in his 1989 series on the Civil Rights Movement, and allowed me to update it with an addendum, and then wrote that nice statement about Bevel in 2015. His expertise on the movement was unquestioned before he commented on the FBI report, which happened fairly recently.

:::::Yes, I'm impartial as to Bevel's fitting the criteria as a level 5 activist who directly changed the course of world events. He did so. Am not as emotionally invested as it may look, just making a case for inclusion and will move on once this process ends (lots of Wikipedia discussions to choose from). No, Bevel is not in many textbooks (is he in any?) or even many older books which list prominent African-Americans. There are many ways to fall-through-the-cracks in coverage of American history, and one is to not self-promote. There are others, and he managed to go those routes too. A fascinating career from many angles (am still a bit amazed that his story is not better known, he could hide in plain sight like that exceptionally well). It takes more than a casual glance to appreciate the scope of Bevel's work and accomplishments, which is what I meant by "taking the time" above, but once you get it, and connect the dots of the events that Bevel initiated, directed, and led, his achievements become obvious. But it takes a bit of laying aside the general view that Dr. King did all the things he did plus has gotten credit, either consciously or unconsciously, for all of the things Bevel did. It was truly a top-tier partnership and collab, neither could have achieved what they did without the other but together they shaped, moved, and represented the Civil Rights Movement to its sought-for success: the end of legalized segregation in the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who voted to remove James Bevel from the level 5 activists list in the January 2024, as to offer them a reasoned discussion for keeping the listing (which did not occur at that time). I hope you take the time to read much of this discussion and consider joining in with questions if need be. Thanks {{u|Grnrchst}}, {{u|TonyTheTiger}}, {{u|lostn}}, {{u|Piotrus}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks for the ping, but I won't be getting involved in this discussion. I stopped regularly participating in the VA project in part because badgering was so endemic to the project culture, and that is the vibe I'm getting from this discussion as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Fair enough, but a loss to the topic. I may have crossed over into badgering while just intending to adequately discuss the nomination, my fault because I'm so sure that Bevel meets the main criteria: did his activism change the course of the world? He sometimes changed it from one day to the next. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't have strong opinion here, but thanks for the ping. If the nom would suggest who to replace him with, I would consider this, but right now I find the claim that he is comparable to King rather far-fetched. 7 interwikis means he has at least a bit of significance outside USA, so there's that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks {{u|Piotrus}}. The listing is about activists who changed the course of humanity, and the comparison to Dr. King was to accent Bevel's role in the Civil Rights Movement as being equal to King's if you count the people who actually strategized, organized, and ran the thing. Bevel and King worked in concert from 1962 onwards, after Bevel was asked by King to join SCLC. Leaving aside his pivotal roles in the student movement (which was why he was asked to take on the nonviolent direct action leadership positions of SCLC), Bevel initiated, directed, and organized the major activist SCLC events of the Civil Rights Movement (Birmingham Children's Crusade, the 1965 Selma movement, the Selma to Montgomery march, the Open Housing movement), actions which led directly to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, the 1965 Voting Rights Bill, and the 1968 Fair Housing bill. You don't get more profound activist achievements than those. I will not pick out a name to be removed, although nobody on the level 5 activist list except for Dr. King came even close to being responsible for evolving the goals of the Civil Rights Movement, initiating and directing its defining events, and achieving its successes, than James Bevel. Not my Wikipedia style to advocate adding a name to a list if it means having to nominate someone for removal. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

To the regulars, please assist with asking {{u|Aurangzebra}} to strike their misinformation in their 'oppose' comment. I've asked them to do so maybe five or six times, with no response. {{u|NegativeMP1}}, {{u|Purplebackpack89}}, {{u|Carlwev}}, {{u|GeogSage}}, {{u|TonyTheTiger}}, and {{u|Piotrus}}, you seem to be regulars here, and should be able to assist in at least asking. Is there a precedent for this type of wrongful wording? "You seem to have had several conflict of interest warnings and blocks and have been accused multiple times of using your own unpublished work on Bevel's article" is incorrect in that I've had no blocks for COI (and am actually a subject matter expert on the topic, seemingly disregarded in this type of voting) and have never used unpublished work on Bevel's article. Repeating another editor's mistakes to justify an 'oppose' comment, and then leaving those mistakes in public view as fact, seems a core of 'casting aspersions'. It is a response to the nomination which seems amateur hour. Even editors schooled in history should not be so needlessly uninformed of historical facts when making such a decision. Leaving aspersions after being asked to remove them, and trying to disparage another editor's off-site work with falsehoods, should not exist or be accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:I will not be deleting my comments. You have been called out on numerous threads (best example here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bevel/Archive_1#:~:text=%5Bsubscribe%5D-,COI%20template,-Randy%20Kryn%2C%20I%27ve]) and you refuse to accept the consensus verdict that you have COI and you have used inappropriate sources written by yourself. This has already been litigated. I usually avoid targeting an editor based on the contents of previous edit history but this is directly connected to why you keep badgering other editors on this proposal who have now made a decision on this person twice so I felt compelled to bring this up. Aurangzebra (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::"This person" was at the center of what has been called the 'Second American Revolution'. No, my status as a subject matter expert is clear, which you would realize had you read the entire archive (already been litigated, in my favor. If you dug deeper you'd find that the editor who was most vocal that I was a COI did so because she did not like Bevel's total life story, or that he was not famous, and objected to my adding his name to a logical location). Have never used an inappropriate source, my own or otherwise, and have no COI (I've been very careful in editing Bevel's 1960s actions and events, where my recognized expertise exists). {{u|Aurangzebra}}, you say in your "oppose" comment that I have been blocked for a COI, which is incorrect, and by not striking that portion you are, to put it mildly, doubling down on a lie (in Wikipedia speak that would be somewhere way on one end of the "casting aspersions" spectrum), which I would again ask you to strike. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::As a gesture of goodwill, I will strike out that part of my oppose. I still don't think Bevel is quite VA5 but I will remove that part of my comment since I don't want to do a deep dive into the outcome of that conversation. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Another note to fill in historical details not mentioned above. James Bevel, who became the strategist and architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, organized and ran the 1961 Nashville Open Theater Movement which ended in allowing African-Americans to sit anywhere in the theater and not confined to the balcony. The formative meetings of SNCC chose opening theaters as a nationwide goal, and activists throughout the United States were supposed to organize these events in their own city. But only Bevel did so, and worked up a successful nonviolent movement in Nashville where "protesters" stood in line at the film theater's ticket booth, asked for a ticket, were denied, said "Thank you", and went to the end of the line to nonviolently que up again and ask a further time. They were eventually attacked by local citizens, and the movement fulfilled its goal.

As this request will likely be closed soon, I'd point out that besides the two 'supports', there are four 'opposes'. One is based on an impossibility - that Bevel, who was not SCLC's chairman, somehow should have been defined and listed as chairman to become a member of the Big Six. One is based on nothing. Another (or arguably all four) on not understanding Bevel's role in the movement and history and that yes, it fits the activist criteria here. One mentions that they think that Bevel was not equal to King in the movement, which actually has nothing to do with if he meets the criteria. One literally makes up a fact, that I have been blocked for COI at some point, a claim with no basis and still appearing after repeated requests to strike. All four create the false impression that James Bevel does not "rise" to the standard of a level-5 activist, arguably bordering-on-the-absurd in the face of the presented and unrefuted evidence and based on the above demonstratively incorrect assertions. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

There is under-representation in art historians of scholars and historians focusing on film. I feel these could be essential names to list, to have more balance between different art forms in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makkool (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

:It is worth noting that it may seem like film scholars are under-represented simply because film theory as an independent field is a relatively novel concept but there are many prominent film scholars we list whose primary contributions are in other domains e.g. {{VA link|François Truffaut}} who was foremost a director and {{VA link|Gilles Deleuze}} who was primarily a philosopher. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's correct. We also already list {{VA link|Sergei Eisenstein}} and {{VA link|André Bazin}} who are prominent, and the latter is represented in the art historians and critics section. I think with the space we have, we can list some more. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

{{archive top green|status=passed |result=Added, 4-1 _pbp 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

His book Film Art "is still used as a seminal text in introductory film courses". 14 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Art / culture theorists are under Social Scientists, which still needs to be topped up. No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Let's just try to get this over the finish line. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't buy a person being important for redlinked books.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Going to reserve judgment on this one but it's worth noting that we don't include seminal textbook authors in other more noteworthy fields. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2. : His article also mentions that he has written "influential articles on theory, narrative, and style". He seems to be an important figure in academic film studies, at least in North America. Don't know if his scholarship is read in Europe for example. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

Queer film theorist and author of The Celluloid Closet, "'an essential reference book' on homosexuality in the US film industry".

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Art / culture theorists are under Social Scientists, which still needs to be topped up. No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 2–2. Makkool (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

African film scholar who "contributed significantly to the study of black film".

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Art / culture theorists are under Social Scientists, which still needs to be topped up. No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Current bio does not get me to say vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Doesn't say "vital" to me either _pbp 00:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)}}

The Miscellaneous category is still under the limit. I propose Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg to a subcategory Victims. Wife of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, shot during the Sarajevo assassination along with the Archduke. (47 iw)

;Support

1. --109.81.95.217 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. There is others of victims with more or the same amount of language links that are not listed such as:
2. * Edward V (64) - recently removed (though Princes in the Tower is listed)
3. * Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (60)
4. * Zoran Đinđić (55)
5. * George Floyd (50)
6. * Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia (47)
7. * Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (47)
8. * Paweł Adamowicz (47)
9. :Some other people I found with less language links who could potentially be listed include:
10. * James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray - first head of government to be assassinated with a firearm
11. * Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet - senior British army officer
12. * Alexander I of Serbia - King of Serbia
13. * Pierre Laporte - Canadian politician killed during the October Crisis
14. * Carlos Prats - Chilean army officer
15. * Hanns Martin Schleyer - German business magnate
16. : -- Sahaib (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
17. Weak oppose, the representation of victims angle is interesting. I'm not sure about listing her (or even Franz Ferdiand to be honest) especially since we already list the much deeper, historical Causes of World War I article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)}}

A Spanish Franciscan friar who is highly regarded as a pioneer of ethnography and anthropology. He was one of the first Europeans to scholarly document and write about pre-Columbian civilizations, most notably in the Florentine Codex.

;Support

1. As nom. To anthropologists. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong support, good find. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

His prominence only came about in 2016, and quickly came to a halt around 2021-2022 save for his attempt to start releasing music. Sure, during that time he became a queer icon of sorts and was noteworthy for his internet makeup work, but that is less than a decade worth of a career to assess. And ever since those allegations came out about him, I don't think anyone has really viewed him in a similar way since and he has, in a way, been swept under the rug by modern pop culture and media. So that narrows down any possible years of vitality for him to about 5-7. Did he do anything particularly exceptional in those 5 to 7 years? No, not really. He only has 25 interwikis. Sure, as I said earlier he may have been a queer icon of sorts for a while and he won some lower-level awards, but I feel that his infamy more or less boils down to only his big controversies.

I cannot imagine any way he would be one of the 15,000 most important people to ever live. I don't even think he'd make a V6. It's purely recentist Ameri-centric pop culture bias. We seriously need to reconsider what makes contemporary celebrities like this worthy of being considered "vital".

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 12:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Recentism.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = Passed

| result = Closing early per WP:AVALANCHE. 9-0 Aurangzebra (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Killing Pemulwuy doesn't really make him vital, like how Jack Ruby or Charles J. Guiteau aren't listed.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. GuzzyG at his finest _pbp 22:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} Is the hostility really necessary? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ::GuzzyG did create a lot of cleanup for the rest of us by BOLDly adding a lot of Australians of questionable vitality _pbp 03:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. :::The method was to cover US, UK, Canada, Aus, NZ and Ireland in as many categories as possible. (the idea being that in a English encyclopedia, every English speaking country would contribute/have representation). I didn't single handedly build the early foundation of this list or spend my whole edit history on this subject just to spam Australians (or i'd have a long history of that on higher lists). Just to be clear. I had a Noah's ark approach, as clear as day in sport, where every sport was covered. That may have resulted in lesser names, but that was the method. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support, agree  Carlwev  22:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
7. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
9. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
10. Per everyone else. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
11. Support. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
12. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Has served as prime minister of Albania since 2013.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, not sure how powerful the PM position is in Albania, but Leaders has a cushion for now. We can revisit more systematically when pruning the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. It's just that not many people have heard of him (outside Albania). --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
2. AFAICT from a quick glance at the politics of Albania article, the Prime Minister doesn't seem as powerful as the President. Regardless, the aforementioned cushion is gone now, and I'm unconvinced that this guy has done anything impactful enough to get him listed, especially since Albania isn't a particularly impactful country internationally. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:#{{Reply|QuicoleJR}} That is false, Albania is a parliamentary republic meaning the president is a sort of ceremonial role. Sahaib (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)}}

A while back there was actually a vote to remove his brother, Jan Breytenbach, a soldier far less well known than he is. Also quite a nice South African who has hardly killed anyone.

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak support, after some thought, even if Writers is still over quota, we probably under-represent Poets. Though I honestly haven't checked the current numbers. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Surprised he wasn't here already. I think we underlist South African writers. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop|Withdrawn without prejudice per below discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Sports figures is roughly 50 people over quota. This individual is only famous as the "greatest Bulgarian footballer" and that isn't good enough for level 5 when Bulgaria has never been a dominant country in association football, especially since we don't list the best player for most other countries, such as {{VA link|Rabah Madjer}} for Algeria. We need to make some cuts, and Stoichkov seems like a good start.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. I'd push back on your reasoning just a little. I think being Bulgarian is actually a point in his favor. Bulgaria is not a soccer powerhouse and yet he singlehandedly brought this terrible team to the semifinals at the 1994 FIFA World Cup, scoring 6 of the team's 10 goals. He was also a great player at the club level as evidenced by the fact that he finished second in FIFA World Player of the Year voting on a non-World Cup year and the fact that he was a critical component of Barcelona's early 90s dream team, considered to be one of the greatest club lineups of all time. There are many, many players we list here that are considered the greatest player for their nation ({{VA link|Andriy Shevchenko}} for Ukraine, {{VA link|

Davor Šuker}} for Croatia, {{VA link|Gheorghe Hagi}} for Romania, {{VA link|Robert Lewandowski}} for Poland, {{VA link|Matthias Sindelar}} for Austria to name a few). With the exception of Hagi, I would get rid of any of these guys before I got rid of Stoichkov. I agree that we can cut down on soccer players but Stoichkov isn't where I'd start. Some other suggestions to remove:

- {{VA link|Kevin Keegan}}: No one would ever put him in a conversation for one of the all-time greats, even in a list of 200. Good for his era but nothing particularly special about his career. No international titles, a few continental awards, impressive but not stellar stats.

- {{VA link|Matthias Sindelar}}: Mentioned above. Voted greatest Austrian soccer player of all time but no major titles to show for it. Also, we generally need to discount the statistics of pre-war soccer players due to the offensive focus of the game back then (compare the 4.12 goals per game at the 1934 FIFA World Cup where he played to the 2.69 of the last World Cup). When you account for this 'goalflation', his stats are not particularly that impressive.

- {{VA link|Cha Bum-kun}}: Best player for a South Korea team that only qualified for the World Cup once during his career (and crashed out of the group stage). Never in any conversations for 'greatest of all time'. No notable club achievements either and he has been surpassed as greatest South Korean player of all time by Son Heung-Min who has had impressive club and international results.

- {{VA link|Nwankwo Kanu}}: Considered one of the African greats but the source they cite for this lists him at 7th. We rightfully don't list the 5th and 6th on that list (Hossam Hassan and Essam El-Hadary). Impressive club achievements but on the same level as hundreds of other players we don't list. When one of your defining accomplishments is having the ninth-most substitute appearances in Premier League history, you don't belong on this list. Also, 12 goals in 86 caps for Nigeria is not particularly impressive for a striker.

- {{VA link|Landon Donovan}}: Maybe this is just because I'm more familiar with soccer than a lot of other things but this might be the most egregious case of American bias I've ever seen. No one would even consider Donovan to be in the top 10 list of players during his peak year, let alone of all time. He never played for a good club (he made 6 appearances for Bayern Munich on a loan and that's it). He was a legend and inspiration for American soccer but that doesn't mean much when the United States is notoriously mediocre at men's soccer. His greatest moments (for example, his goal against Algeria in the 2010 FIFA World Cup) are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of soccer accomplishments because the US would just lose in the next round anyways. Maybe he is on here for other reasons such as popularizing the sport in the US but I feel like the women's team did a better job at that than he did. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've been holding out on a vote for this to see how it lands and I think {{U|Aurangzebra}} sums it perfectly. There are many other candidates from a soccer perspective that likely should be removed before Stoichkov. That said, depending on how many the list dwindles to, I'm also not a staunch advocate for keeping Stoichkov either. I'd be in favor for withdrawing this nomination and immediately listing Aurangzebra's nominations (aside from Donovan as I think he did do a great deal in popularizing soccer in the United States) and voting for the removal of all of them. GauchoDude (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Aurangzebra}} I nominated Kanu and Sindelar below, and I will likely nominate the others soon. I am going to withdraw this proposal for now, without prejudice towards renominating in the future if we need further cuts. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-3, possibly closing a bit early per WP:BUREAU (spin-off proposal from discussion in another). After further discussion, revisit adding back Pat Spillane for Gaelic football in the future. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

Irish hurler, with a career spanning over 20 years and according to the page, many records, and considered by many to be the best player in the sport's history. For representation considerations, he's only 1 of the 2 currently listed "Gaelic Sports" players.

;Support

1. Support. I don't think we need to have an individual representative for every sport any more then we need to have characters from every media franchise added. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, after considering both the claims around his athleticism and that we only list 2 for the sport, I'd actually be OK keeping him for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As being considered the best in his sport. GauchoDude (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

Per the Sport in Ireland page "In terms of support and attendance, Gaelic football accounted for 34% of total sports attendances at events in the Republic of Ireland in 2003, followed by hurling at 23%, association football (soccer) at 16% and rugby at 8%", Gaelic football is the most popular Gaelic sport in Ireland over Hurling. Gaelic football lost it's two representatives in the previous cutdowns. I don't see how Hurling should have any then. It probably should have been 1 for each or none. But not just 2 for the least popular of the two. GuzzyG (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 21:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm, good catch, that's probably a consequence of us going by the section header, which lumps all "Gaelic sports" together. That happens sometimes since Lv5 is so fluid, but thankfully we can always revisit things after a cool-off period. Whoever closes this, consider including a note to revisit adding back Pat Spillane for Gaelic football. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=No consensus |result=No consensus for removal, 2-2, last activity in February (excluding GuzzyG signing their comment) _pbp 16:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}}

American rodeo cowboy, won 16 world championships (the record at the time), and clearly successful in the sport. For representation considerations, we currently list 6 rodeo riders (but note, only 1 polo player and 0 for {{VA link|Buzkashi}}).

;Support

1. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-22&pages=Jim_Shoulders%7CTy_Murray%7CLarry_Mahan%7CTrevor_Brazile%7CCasey_Tibbs%7CRoy_Cooper_(rodeo_cowboy)%7CTuff_Hedeman%7CLane_Frost%7CDon_Gay%7CChris_LeDoux Pageviews] are quite low compared to other rodeo cowboys. Sahaib (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. Less influential then media franchises that would never make the cut. We don't list multiple characters from moderately successful videogame franchises, we don't need list all the successful athletes in a sport. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. Huge list of accolades lending credence to him being a pillar within his sport. If we're looking to reduce rodeo, I think J.B. Mauney, Larry Mahan, or Charmayne James may make more sense? I'm certainly not an expert on the topic, but the resume seems stronger than others unless I'm missing something. GauchoDude (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose, after looking into it a bit more, cutting Mahan and Murray from Rodeo is enough for now. Seems like Shoulders is pretty legendary in the sport too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support swap with Lane Frost as proposed below,Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

I'm actually neutral on this one for now; I'd have to think roughly what representation rodeo riders should have. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

1. The rodeo additions were chosen from community discussion from people that are knowledgeable on this subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_1#Rodeo_category] Should be worth noting that Montanabw's final recommendation was "So I recommend Bill Pickett, Jim Shoulders or Larry Mahan (preferably both), Charmayne James, Ty Murray, and Trevor Brazile" three of which would be removed here and would leave J.B. Mauney who was not. Subject matter discussion with interested and knowledgeable people is probably preferable compared to rough cuts for this reason. GuzzyG (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 21:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I think we should only have one or two rodeo riders on the list, if that, since rodeo is a very niche sport. However, I don't know enough about to sport to know whether Shoulders should be that one rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Lane Frost could maybe be added instead since he gets approximately 38x more pageviews daily on average and arguably had a greater impact on the sport during his lifetime (Challenge of the Champions) and because of his death (The Last Ride (bull riding accident)). John G. Avildsen (at level 5) directed a film about him titled 8 Seconds in which Frost was played by Luke Perry (also at level 5). Sahaib (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Removed, 5-0}}

We have too many American film actors, and I don't think this guy makes the cut. One Tony and one Oscar isn't enough for vitality, especially when the Oscar is for best supporting actor. He also doesn't seem like a particularly important or influential actor.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 14:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support, weak because I disagree that awards are the best metric for judging whether an actor is vital, I'd put more weight on things like being in large amounts of movies or having an iconic role/roles Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|Closed as redundant to an earlier section. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Roger Deakins is probably the most famous and celebrated cinematographer of our generation.[https://www.imdb.com/list/ls069087131/][https://www.robertcmorton.com/the-20-best-cinematographers/ [2]] Also, "Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters" is under quota.

;Support

1. As Nom ALittleClass (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{ping|ALittleClass}} We already have a nomination open for this person, which you are free to support. See the "add cinematographers" section further up the page. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 8-0 in WP:AVALANCHE Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Why does historians include a random sensationalist celeb writer?

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 22:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. He only has five interwikis and his article does not show any kind of lasting impact. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 00:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
5. 5 interwikis, pretty minor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
6. ~10 daily pageviews, very minor.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Just riding the avalanche. GauchoDude (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Minor figure. ALittleClass (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The perpetrator of the {{VA link|Pulse nightclub shooting}}. While he did kill a lot of people as part of a targeted attack, we already list the shooting itself as vital and he didn't do anything of note beyond this singular attack. No manifesto or further inspiration to future attacks, no further attacks, no further affiliation or deeper investigation outside of the quick aftermath of the shooting. He is adequately covered in the article for the shooting itself under the "Perpetrator" section.

I see this as being a similar situation to why we removed {{VA link|Mark David Chapman}}: notable for only one event, that being killing {{VA link|John Lennon}}. Sure, Mateen killed far more than just one person as part of a targeted attack, but so did {{VA link|Stephen Paddock}}, who killed and injured far more people than Mateen yet is not listed.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 02:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom, especially since the event itself is already listed. The event itself is already a borderline VA5 (extremely tragic but hasn't stayed in the cultural zeitgeist the way other massive tragedies have). Aurangzebra (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :I was thinking too that the shooting itself could possibly be removed since I'm not sure if it's had the same relevance and long-term consequences as events like the {{VA link|Columbine High School massacre}} or even the {{VA link|Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting}}. As sadistic as it may seem to say this, I think mass shootings in the United States are extremely common enough to the point where many are equally as "important" regardless of their death toll. At least on a global scale. Compare that to Columbine which arguably started or significantly fueled the whole trend of mass shootings in the United States, and Sandy Hook where it is still to this day subject to a lot of political commentary and conspiracy theories. I'm not even sure if the {{VA link|2017 Las Vegas shooting}}, the deadliest in U.S. history, has had as long term relevance and consequences as Columbine or Sandy Hook. I wouldn't nominate the Pulse nightclub shooting for removal myself, because I quite frankly don't want to open that can of worms, but I definitely feel divided on whether or not it should be listed. λ NegativeMP1 03:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ::Yea, definitely agree with you. Won't open a proposal for it but would probably vote to remove if someone else did. Aurangzebra (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Agreed. Surprised the subject even made the list, tbh. GauchoDude (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Support - also unsure how many shootings we should have - I know it's not an exact science and we should try to have a broad coverage but in terms of destructive events remembered in history, there are some big battles absent, like say Battle of Kiev (1941) with over 750,000 dead. Shootings are tragic but it's hard to compare.  Carlwev  13:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=Passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

19th-century French management theorist best known for developing a systematic approach to administration. He's regarded as one of the two founders of {{VA link|Scientific management}} along with {{VA link|Frederick Winslow Taylor}}.

;Support

1. As nom. To Social scientists ---> Business theorists. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, Social scientists is still under quota, and this is probably the sort of topic Lv 5 is perfect for (a bit niche but still notable). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Seems vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Another add to writers for a change. She is arguably one of the most famous contemporary American poets.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, everyone did a good job trimming Writers and we under-represent poets. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Poets are underrepresented compared to novelists and she seems like a good one to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Added 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Margaret Mahy was an acclaimed children's author from New Zealand. She won several major awards and written over 100 books. Currently we don't list any children's authors from NZ, so she should fit well to the list.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, everyone did a really good job of trimming the Writers section, and it's now back within the cushion. We'll probably want to trim more in the future, but for now, we can add a couple. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
4. As someone who thinks we list too many writers, I think Mahy would be a good addition to the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

The fact that he effectively created such a large portion of Internet spam is definitely interesting, but I can't see how he's vital. His impact doesn't really amount to anything more than just Internet history trivia. Only two interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 03:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
5. _pbp 07:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|Not added 2-4. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Whilst his term as prime minister was quite short, he was notably the first conservative prime minister of Sweden in 61 years (similar to Danish prime minister Poul Schlüter who is listed), and led the Moderate Party for 13 years in 4 elections. He was later the foreign minister under Fredrik Reinfeldt from 2006 to 2014 (and was offered the position again in 2022 but he declined). He also served as the first High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Excluding Sweden's three most recent prime ministers and Olof Palme (who is already listed), Bildt gets the most [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-28&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prime_ministers_of_Sweden pageviews].

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Going to support here just to provide some kind of dissent even though it almost certainly won't pass with the current quota, as he is an important figure in European international relations, more than domestic politics. Iostn (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, he seems like a pretty mundane politician on a global scale when looking at all of human history. How many rulers of Kush have been nominated for removal recently? I think in 2,000 years, he is unlikely to be much more then a line in a table of a history book. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{Reply|GeogSage}} I would dispute that, [https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-troubleshooter/ this article] from 1995 states that "Although he is currently playing a backstage role in the peace process while his American counterpart steals the headlines, even his fiercest critics concede Bildt has put Sweden firmly on the diplomatic map. He could yet end up with a place in the history books as a key player in rebuilding the former Yugoslavia." Sahaib (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
3. I think one more Swedish politician should be listed, but I'd much, much rather it be {{VA link|Tage Erlander}}: {{xt|His uninterrupted tenure of 23 years as head of the government is the longest ever in Sweden and in any modern Western democracy}}; {{xt|He was considered one of the most popular leaders in the world by the end of the 1960s}}; {{xt|During his premiership, Sweden developed into one of the world's most advanced welfare states, with the "Swedish Model" at the peak of its acclaim and notoriety}}; {{xt|He has been compared to other notable Swedish "political giants" such as Palme and Dag Hammarskjöld.}} (the other two Swedish politicians listed). It's a no-brainer in my opinion. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose, purely on procedural grounds for now. We already have enough Leader additions in play, and we should probably stop treating the 2% cushion as an unofficial quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Not sure Sweden needs more and there are better options _pbp 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

If any leader from Sweden - how about the current King Carl XVI Gustaf? Been King for over 50 years, longest in Sweden's history, had 10 PMs under him.Article in, I think, 89 languages. Although his power is limited, so is the British Monarch, but Swedish even more so.  Carlwev  17:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't mind adding the other Carl. Sahaib (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Polo}} is notable but, with only 4 interwikis, I don't think Cambiaso is _pbp 18:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 18:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree per nom. We are over quota on sports figures; this move would help. GauchoDude (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=Passed |result=Removed, 5-0 _pbp 20:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hasn't really had any major roles aside from a few movies and shows that were only popular for their time. His inclusion just comes off as a case of recency bias.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Main argument for vitality is winning a lot of Teen Choice Awards. He can go. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Even though section is underquota he does not seem important enough to include, and if we struggle to fill the page with meaningful entries its quota can be reduced.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status=passed|result=Removed, 7-0 _pbp 20:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I was unable to find the conversation in which this subject was added. The entire sport of carrom is Level 5, the subject doesn't strike me as one of the top sportspeople, very few Wikilinks, and we're over quota on sports figures.

; Support

1. As nom. GauchoDude (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 17:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Added by {{u|GuzzyG}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._Maria_Irudayam&diff=prev&oldid=838775632] back when he was the only contributor to this project. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
5. I'll support these cuts, but in spirit i still believe every sport should be covered. Cutting down the sports quota by 100 (should've went down to 800 and i regret not voting for a way lower quota) but then only targeting the unique sports with one person isn't the best as a sports encyclopedia should cover most sports that exist (imagine a global encyclopedia that covers global sports but then cutting out all the unique global sports just because they're not known in the US or UK). GuzzyG (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
6. :Just because the sport or game is notable doesn't make the athletes notable. _pbp 12:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
7. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
8. We need to make cuts, and {{VA link|Carrom}} doesn't seem impactful enough to warrant a player. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopr|Not removed 4-4. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Despite an immensely successful single and additional success on other releases, has won very few music awards and is more of a political/conspiracy activist through music and various other mediums. Would not consider her a VA for Hip-hop/Rap.

;Support

1. As nom. Dillbobther (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Sahaib (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't think people understand how much her two first albums changed the hip-hop game. Both Kala (album) and Arular are considered some of the greatest and influential albums of the 21st century so her success is not just limited to one single. She is even included on Esquire's list of the top 75 most influential people of the 21st century. Not rappers, not even musicians, but people in general. I don't particularly like her music and I lost a lot of respect for her in the last few years but it's impossible to deny the effect she's had on society and music this century. We have much better contenders to remove from the recent hip-hop era (and I'm not particularly inclined to remove them either). On top of the {{VA link|Skepta}} and {{VA link|Wiley (musician)}} proposal below, we can remove {{VA link|Lil Jon}} who arguably has less critical awards and less interwikis and just has a few popular singles that people can recognize (but so do hundreds of other recent musicians we don't list). Aurangzebra (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above - and also I don't think making the hip hop section more US-biased is a particulrly useful thing to do Iostn (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Aurangzebra. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Aurangzebra. Hip-hop goes beyond the US and removing any sign of that is not good for any encyclopedia. GuzzyG (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|Not added 1-5. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I believe that the rapper Travis Scott should be added to the Level-5 Vital Article List on Wikipedia. I believe that he should be added due to his various award wins and nominations from various different outlets, his critically and commercially-acclaimed third and fourth studio albums: Astroworld and Utopia, his well-known collaborations with the organizations Nike, Dior, and McDonald's—among others. Aside from the previously noted facts about Travis Scott, additional reasons I believe he should be added are how he gained notoriety for concert safety, mainly due to the Astroworld Festival crowd crush—Scott has also had various fashion ventures, multiple notable sneaker collaborations, Fortnite collaborations, and has made contributions to the film-industry. Due to these reasons and his partnerships with the respective companies, I believe that Travis Scott should be added to the Level-5 Vital Article List on Wikipedia. Sincerely, JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Nom JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Not without a swap. Too many American musicians as is _pbp 16:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Contemporary pop culture musician. I don't think he's done nearly enough for the music industry besides just be popular. λ NegativeMP1 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
3. While he is popular, I wouldn't say vital or impactful to the same degree as the other Lv.5s. The collaborations mentioned don't speak much to the importance of him as a Hip-hop/Rap VA. It's like adding Shaq based on his brand collabs and not his basketball career. Dillbobther (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Very vital in Fortnite for all the wrong reasons. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Moved 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)}}

His vitality stems from his three Tony Awards, especially the one for Teyve. _pbp 15:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 15:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
4. In my opinion we should be allowed to move entries, especially on the same subpage, without having four votes; I have proposed relaxing the rules but that propposal has mostly been ignored. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Added 7-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

German mathematician renowned for his contributions to geometry and topology. His work laid the groundwork for modern algebraic geometry.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, did work in other fields too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Quite important. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I agree with adding August Ferdinand Möbius to the list. --Jeong seolah (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Having several concepts named after him implies significance, and the section for scientists etc. is underquota at 1272/1300.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ALittleClass (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Yi-Fu Tuan is a Chinese-American geographer who is considered one of the key figures in {{VA link|human geography}}. He is highly notable within the discipline, essential to the covering of other topics within {{VA link|Geography}}, and while he was an American professor, he was born in China so this inclusion may help to reduce our western bias.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, if he's a human geographer, this is actually easy because we're way under quota in Social Scientists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :I have a list of social scientists from geography about a mile long. I'm not as fluent in my other disciplines, but I know the ones we tell grad students are "vital." There are some at Level 4 I proposed that are struggling as well. The hard thing with the social sciences is that a high h-index does not mean they will have a well developed article. For example, {{VA link|Waldo R. Tobler}} has an h-index on his [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Waldo-Tobler ResearchGate] of 40, and 16,636 citations. {{VA link|Mei-Po Kwan}} has an h-index of 95 and a i10-index of 338 on [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vd-iK1cp0AIC&hl=en Google Scholar]. Over the past 10 years though, [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-18&pages=Waldo_R._Tobler|Mei-Po_Kwan|Yi-Fu_Tuan views] for the pages have not been high compared to other types of articles. What is absolutely vital to academics in the ivory tower doesn't seem to translate well to Wikipedia, as [https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=vd-iK1cp0AIC&citation_for_view=vd-iK1cp0AIC:2VqYfGB8ITEC one 2015 publication] by Mei-Po Kwan et al. has more citations then her page has had views since 2015. She won the The Applied Geography Specialty Group of the American Association of Geographers James R. Anderson Medal of Honor (Considered by some to be the highest award for a geographer in America) in 2022, so the discipline has recognized her work. I have one proposal I'll make after this based on this comment. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nomEleniXDD※Talk 08:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The article {{VA link|Ralph Bathurst}} doesn't mention any scientific accomplishments unless you count the very vague claim "theorised fruitfully in 1654 on respiration".

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom Iostn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-1. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I hardly consider her vital. She has not even been nominated for a major award.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2. We don't need everybody who was "it" for a minute _pbp 14:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Icon on a single decade Makkool (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Not a vital actor. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Ringwald was/is a icon of the 80s, and I don't think awards are the only way for an actor to be vital. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{reply|TonyTheTiger}} Oh no! I hope this is not because of my comment at #Swap Tatum O'Neal with Cillian Murphy.
Btw, if talking about young actresses, I would definitely add Brooke Shields to "models" or whereever. She seems to have been very popular in the 1980s – early 1990s, even if just for her looks. (Even if the only movie of hers that is actually shown on TV in Europe and in Russia a lot is The Blue Lagoon, and I personally find it just abysmal. I wonder why Wanda Nevada doesn't get any exposure, though. I remember watching it, and it was good.) IMO, Brooke Shields is equal to the two (Tatum O'Neal and Molly Ringwald) combined.
P. S. It's strange how Michael Jackson is in every article I mentioned in these discussions. I mean "Tatum O'Neal", "Brooke Shields", "Elizabeth Taylor". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:User:Moscow Connection, Yes you called my attention to Ringwald. Shields was obscenely popular as a model and not so much as an actress. O'Neal has a real drop your draw claim to vitality as the youngest Oscar winner. She did not have a significant period of high level success, but that single claim makes it hard for me to place her on the bubble over so many marginally vital actors. She is a less successful actor than many less vital actors. Her record places her above Shields who was among those at the top of her field for a while. Shields is above Ringwald, IMO. When we get a quorum here, we'll see what the result is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|Not added 1-3. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

He was the mayor of New York City during one of the most famous events of the 21st century (9/11). Sometimes called America's Mayor.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Same rationale as {{U|Purplebackpack89}} below, but I'll take a step further. I don't think he fits the bill for one of the most important historical figures ever. If we continue to keep adding more and more to the quota, eventually he'd make a list, but there are several (in my opinion) more prominent politicians still missing to add before I'd add RG. At last count, we were at quota for politicians at Level 5 as is (actually, 7 above). GauchoDude (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Generally, I think we need to change our approach to which people we include. Giuliani is not one of the most influential 15,000 humans ever to live. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
3. I'm not seeing how he is that vital. He's less vital than politicians like {{VA link|Greg Abbott}} or {{VA link|Marco Rubio}}, neither of which we list. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Neutral. I don't see him as several people we've removed from VA5, such as John Kerry. If we had a level with 200 American politicians, he'd probably be one of them, but IDK about he at the approximate number of American VA5 politicians. _pbp 00:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Carl O. Sauer is likely one of the single most influential geographers to American geography in the 20th century. His focus was on {{VA link|Human geography}}, and on his page they mention he has been called "the dean of American{{VA link|Historical geography}}." Per above, we are under quota on social scientists.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, Human geographers are an easy add with Social Scientists still incomplete and no plans to shrink the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Read through the article and I don't see the importance here. Sure, he made the most influential paper on cultural landscapes but that isn't a VA5 topic nor should it be. I think it's bad precedent to add unknown academics whose influence mainly pertains to subfields. It's a very slippery slope. If we do go down this route, I would prefer academics whose influential papers can directly be attributed to societal impacts. For example, we don't list Ashish Vaswani and the other authors who wrote Attention Is All You Need, the paper that every researcher points to as the one that is responsible for the current AI boom. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :Seeing the word "unknown academic" next to Sauer is painful. His influence is more on how academic geography is taught in the U.S. then anything else. Outside literature is likely needed to fully understand academics, not just looking at Wikipedia. For example, the chapter [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-38948-2_148-1 Carl Sauer’s Contributions to Historical Geography and Human Ecology] in a Springer Nature publication, or [https://www.jstor.org/stable/44370995 CARL SAUER, FIELD EXPLORATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHIC THOUGHT] in the journal Southeastern Geographer, which opens with the line "Carl Ortwin Sauer (1889-1975) is recognized as one of the most influential figures in American geography." He's one of those guys that is talked about in graduate seminars in the first two or three lectures to set the stage for literature reviews. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|Not removed 3-3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Little is known about this guy except that he apparently fought off one invasion. He does not seem vital, and there are plenty of other leaders that could use the slot.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support as this [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48867830 source] describes him as a "minor pharaoh". Sahaib (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, I had to look into this one, but if you go to the one citation for his regnal stele, it's actually pretty meaty. Archaeological excavations of his tomb are ongoing too. In short, the current stub page may not reflect how much sources know of him already. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar and Geog _pbp 22:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. Change vote to opposeGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. I believe several of our leaders from Kush have been proposed lately. If a ruler survived in the historic record for thousands of years, they might be "vital," or it could be a coincidence that they happened to be kept while others were lost. That said, our leaders/people section definitely skew towards the past 500 to 1000 years in terms of coverage. Not saying I oppose this outright, but think there might be better groups to start with then ancient people. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The Athletes section is well over the quota, and we need to start cutting. Out of the eight speed skaters, Koss stands out as seemingly the least vital. His only real claim to vitality is being really good, and the other players on the list are better. There are other speed skaters from the same country, such as {{VA link|Knut Johannesen}}, who are of a similar level of skill and are not listed, so I don't see why Koss should be listed over them.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 5-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm not sure if we need any {{VA link|Racquetball}} players, but we definitely don't need two. {{VA link|Paola Longoria}} appears to be the best racquetball player in the world, so that leaves Kane Waselenchuk. He is a great racquetball player, but that isn't enough to be listed, and he has zero interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 20:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Removed, 8-0 _pbp 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Had a popular newsletter, but overall, there's not much assertion of legacy or influence. 1 interwiki.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. I really wonder how some of these got added. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Added by {{u|GuzzyG}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Lefsetz&diff=prev&oldid=838984804] back when he was the only contributor to this project. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. _pbp 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Admittedly articles like Lefsetz were manageable filler so that from the outset the space was filled initially to discourage an onslaught of additions from IPs, they were always supposed to be removed long term when i found appropiate replacements. I can cut down tonnes of this junk now but the vote for every removal thing has really bogged down the list. I'll help manage it though, but these articles are def fill in junk and should be gone. Critics should be 10-15 at most, they are regional journalists with very little impact and they always tend to lean American or Western European. GuzzyG (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
7. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Lacks long term significance. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=Pir Roshan added 4-0
Mustafa Rumi not added (no consensus) 2-1
Ustad Ali Quli not added (no consensus) 2-1
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

All 3 would be in the Early Modern period:

• Mustafa Rumi, Ottoman advisor to Babur who helped introduce musketeers to the Mughal army
• Ustad Ali Quli, another Ottoman advisor to Babur who helped modernize Mughal artillery
• Pir Roshan, Pashtun sufi leader that started a long resistance to Mughal influence

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Pir Roshan only Iostn (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Support only Pir Roshan. Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Ustad Ali Quli and Mustafa Rumi, stubs with low pageviews and interwikis (zero in the case of the former) Iostn (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
2. : That's fair, and that neither even has a Turkish interwiki is a negative in my mind. That said, since we're still under quota in this section, do you think you'd be willing to give these a chance for now just to see if anyone can expand them? There are citations, their historical influence is noteworthy, and they give us good non-Western and pre-1800s coverage. I normally don't discuss votes, but while I won't rehash my comments above, I don't like the idea of deciding just on current metrics; they can sift out a lot of chaff, but sometimes they just reflect a lack of interest to date (by readers or editors). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

Just to clarify the margin, we're currently at 4-0 to add Pir Roshan, but only 2-1 to add Ustad Ali Quli and Mustafa Rumi. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've added Pir Roshan to the list. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Partial pass|result=Mulcahy added 4-0
Twomey not added 3-3
Goulding not added 3-2
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)}}

All 20th century and political figures too, but they served as military Chiefs of Staff for the IRA at significant points or over long periods of time. I guess they could all go under Rebels or Military figures:

• Richard Mulcahy, fought in the Easter Rising, second-in-command under Michael Collins, and later Minister of Defence for the pro-Treaty government in the Irish Civil War.
• Moss Twomey, longest-serving Chief of Staff for the IRA in the 1920s and 30s after its first split from the Irish government.
• Cathal Goulding, long involvement with reviving the IRA after WWII, served as Chief of Staff for most of the 1960s, and a major influence in shifting political alignments of the IRA and associated parties.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support on Mulcahy, if only to finish this vote. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Moss Twomey is not in any other languages, neutral on the other two. Sahaib (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Moss Twomey and Cathal Goulding (also note the latter led the Official IRA, the less active IRA splinter during the Troubles) Iostn (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
3. : Just to add some context, you're right that Goulding's faction largely sat out the Troubles and therefore isn't as notable. It seems like Goulding was important to reviving the IRA before that split too though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose Twomey and Goulding. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Just to clarify the margin, we're currently at 3-0 to add Richard Mulcahy, 3-2 to add Moss Twomey, and 3-1 to add Cathal Goulding. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=Sam Manekshaw added 4-0
Tikka Khan added 4-1
K. M. Shafiullah not added 3-2
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

We list others as leaders, but we currently don't include:

• Sam Manekshaw, Chief of Staff for the Indian Army and responsible for the overall strategy behind Indian victory.
• Tikka Khan, actual Pakistani theater commander and governor in Bangladesh, significantly responsible for Operation Searchlight.
• K. M. Shafiullah, sector commander (including the capital city of Dhaka) during the war and appointed to Army Chief of Staff for the new military shortly after independence.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Maneshaw only _pbp 16:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support Tikka Khan, oppose Shafiullah. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Khan and Shafiullah. Relatively minor figures with few interwikis. _pbp 16:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :These were definitely brainstorming on my part, especially Shafiullah, so I'm not that invested in them being added. More as a comment though, if one of the 2 or 3 people arguably most responsible for trying to genocide Bangladesh has few interwikis, I'd take that as an example of how unreliable interwikis are as a metric sometimes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

I've added Manekshaw to the list. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Last batch, but this should bring the section to about 900:

• Adnan Khayr Allah, Iraqi Minister of Defence throughout the Iran-Iraq War.
• Mohsen Rezaee, also a politician, but commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran) for most of the war; also arguably its first regular commander and organized it into a genuine military force.
• Ali Sayad Shirazi, commander of Iran's conventional ground army (Artesh) for most of the war.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. I defer to the other voters so we can finish this vote. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Adnan Khayr Allah, a ssomeone who is most well-knwon as a Minister of Defence (i.e. a cabinet member) would normally go under politicians, in fact Mohsen Rezaee might also belong there as someone who is seemingly more well-known as a political candidate Iostn (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:I agree both are kind of borderline, but the way I see it, even if he's in a cabinet-style organization and didn't start out as a soldier, Khayrallah is primarily known for commanding a military. Razaee is arguably even more borderline, but I think he's still known more for his military accomplishments than bureaucratic ones, plus he started his career as a rebel. And in elections, I think he mostly appeals to conservatives or Realpolitik voters, again because of his military accomplishments. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the margin, I interpret this as currently at 3-0 for all. I sort of goofed up by accidentally typing "decline" instead of "neutral" for some reason. {{ping|Iostn}} Did you actually want to Oppose by posting under the Decline header, or just neutrally discuss? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think I meant that as a "discuss" comment Iostn (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Per the article, he is currently the longest-serving democratically-elected state leader having been prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines since 2001. He has also twice served as chairman of the Caribbean Community. Sahaib (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Added for nom Sahaib. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support, not sure leading these islands has the same geopolitical heft as some others we're discussing, but we still have a cushion in Leaders. We can revisit things more systematically when we need to prune the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
4. * I would vote against him since it's such a small country, but the best chance to finish this vote is to support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Doesn't do it for me. Fair few interwikis at 30+, but if the bar for this project is leaders of small islands, then I'm not sure we're identifying the right people. The rationale of "well we have room" and "let's finish the vote" is why we have biography bloat problems. GauchoDude (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per GauchoDude. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. I don't see any lasting impact on his country or the broader region, and I don't think "served for a long time" is good enough for Level 5. If his referendum to abolish the monarchy had passed, I would have supported. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Some well-known people related to dieting and healthy eating are missing from the list. Add to section Miscellaneous/Health and fitness.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)}}

First person to "popularise a weight loss diet based on limiting the intake of carbohydrates" like starch and sugar. His influence is evident that his name became a verb to mean losing weight, which still exists in Swedish.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak support, but good point about Miscellaneous being under quota. I say, "brainstorming is welcome." -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
3. sure Aurangzebra (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Let's get this over the finish line. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Don't think he's that significant. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Not so vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. I hope the people opposing are not basing it on only the article's lede paragraph. The Legacy section is to me solid proof that he is a notable enough figure to list as vital. Makkool (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Introduced the macrobiotic diet to the West.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, good point about Miscellaneous being under quota. I say, "brainstorming is welcome." -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Non-Western + solid pageviews. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
4. We'll never finish this otherwise. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Macrobiotic diet}} is not listed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top red|status=No consensus|result=Not added, 3-2. May be reopened separately without prejudice _pbp 23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Known for promoting the Mediterranean diet. The article cites The Boston Globe that he is "world's most influential nutritionist".

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, good point about Miscellaneous being under quota. I say, "brainstorming is welcome." -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Doesn't do it for me. 10 or so interwikis for a person whose claim to fame is the Mediterranean diet, which isn't even Vital listed itself. GauchoDude (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. It looks like the quota for Miscellaneous will be reduced soon, and I'm not seeing anything in the article that makes me want to list him among the 15K most vital people to ever live. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Difficult, this one. Not very well-known but apparently quite significant – perhaps the opposite of many nutritionists. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 2-2. Makkool (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

First to introudce the idea of a raw food diet in the US.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. After some more thought, let's add her for now, both in line with the other suggestions and Miscellaneous people having the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Currently only in 4 other languages. Sahaib (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Little-known naturopath. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We definitely list too many NFL players at VA5 currently. Out of the players listed, Lambert seems like one of the least vital. His claim to being one of the best players in his position isn't as well supported as other players, and he isn't even the most vital player among the 1970s Steelers lineup! He also only has 7 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=passed|result=Inzamam-ul-Haq, Jayawardene, Chanderpaul, Jayasuriya and Boycott removed 5-0
Hammond, Headley, de Villiers and Holding added 4-1
Pollock not added 2-2
Chappell relisted 3-1
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

On a perusal of the cricket section, it's skewed more towards batters and the 1990s/2000s than I'd like. {{VA link|Wally Hammond}} is the most striking omission: he's generally viewed as a top ten batsman. I'm going to list my proposed changes and lump it all into one big poll in which you can indicate your supports and opposes – if there's any you take particular issue with, I'll explain my reasoning but I'm not going to go deep into it right from the get-go.

Additions for the batters: {{VA link|Wally Hammond}} (England 1930s), {{VA link|George Headley}} (West Indies 1930s), {{VA link|Greg Chappell}} (Australia 1970s), {{VA link|AB de Villiers}} (South Africa 2010s).

Removals for the batters: {{VA link|Inzamam-ul-Haq}} (Pakistan 1990s/2000s), {{VA link|Mahela Jayawardene}} (Sri Lanka 2000s), {{VA link|Shivnarine Chanderpaul}} (West Indies 2000s), {{VA link|Sanath Jayasuriya}} (Sri Lanka 2000s), {{VA link|Geoffrey Boycott}} (England 1970s)

Additions for the bowlers: {{VA link|Michael Holding}} (West Indies 1980s), {{VA link|Shaun Pollock}} (South Africa 2000s)

Other areas that might warrant change are the inclusions of Clarrie Grimmett, Chris Gayle, Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid, Jack Blackham, Ranjitsinhji, and Younis Khan and the non-inclusions of Javed Miandad, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Courtney Walsh, Ray Lindwall, Kane Williamson, Andy Flower, Aubrey Faulkner, Ravichandran Ashwin, and Anil Kumble.

;Support (most)

1. Support all as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support almost all, weak oppose Pollock. It's a very naive approach, but I skimmed his article and while he's clearly had a lot of success, I didn't notice any superlatives like in the other articles. The rest of the proposal will still balance things (+1 for bowlers and -2 for batsmen). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :I can live without Pollock being listed, but I feel like he can get a bit shafted. Whilst a level below the other test bowlers listed, his batting pedigree and ODI bowling mean he should be listed as an all-rounder in my opinion, and I would prefer him listed than the four below. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
4. ::Hmm, I'll take note of that. Since it looks like the current bulk swap I started will bog down fast, I can probably incorporate him in the v2 swap I'll try later. My condition that we at least trim a couple cricketers for the new quota (but no more than 5 altogether, proportional to the quota drop) is just stronger. You've given us a lot of good input here though, and I didn't think of it before, but a swap that's m-to-n instead of 1-to-1 is a relatively smooth way to adjust representation. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support all removals. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
6. I trust you since you seem to know cricket well. I actually wanted to propose AB de Villiers a few months ago because he's one of the rare cricketers I recognize and I saw he wasn't on this list so a strong support for him. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Support all except Chappell and Pollock. Neutral on the aforementioned two. Chappell's lead is written like an advertisement but still doesn't show him as one of the greatest players of all time (or of his country) and I have the same issues with Pollock as Zar2gar1. The rest seem like the kind of athletes that would stick around after cutting is complete, and the removals all make sense except Jayasuriya, who also seems like the kind of person who might be worth keeping, although I don't feel too strongly about that one. {{ping|J947}} I would be interested to hear your reasoning for the three I don't support. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
8. :Jayasuriya's article paints him as a greater figure than quality journalists have it, whilst the opposite is true for Chappell and Pollock. Chappell and Pollock aren't obscure figures – their articles don't really give them their dues. Chappell was the Allan Border, Steve Waugh, or Ricky Ponting of a slightly earlier generation and is generally rated a greater batsman than Border and Waugh, and similar to Ponting. Pollock's article is incredibly weak for his stature, and probably reflects a shortness of South African contributors here: Five Eyes and subcontinental opinions often dominate online spaces. Potentially Jayasuriya has wider name recognition and acknowledgement of his influence. Who you want is dependent on the weighting you ascribe to popularity and to how they're rated by cricket tragics (like me). J947 ‡ ^edits 21:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
9. ::That's fair. I've moved to neutral on Chappell and Pollock and support on Jayasuriya. Thank you for articulating your reasoning. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose (most)

1. oppose additions.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :Opposing Hammond (a top-ten test batsman) and de Villiers (a top-five ODI batsman) is nonsensical, as they should be listed if the cricketer section was half its size. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{ping|J947}} It's good to get some input from a cricket fan (I know next to nothing about the game except that it's like the one thing the entire former British empire can agree on). I'm fine deferring to your knowledge on this, but as written, it would add 1 cricket player overall. Do you think you could pick just 2 more players from the list to remove, as a new subproposal within this one? If so, I'll definitely support this proposal entirely. I don't think Cricket should drop below 55 people even if we cut the Sportsmen quota to 1,100, but I'm sympathetic to the trimming. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:I actually had real trouble picking the next cricketer to replace – that's why I left it at that. Note that if the Bodyline swap passes then the number of players will revert to 60 and it will even out. A potential removal for the cricket section is {{VA link|International cricket}}, given we don't have anything like {{VA link|International football}} (a dab page) etc. If pushed, I'd suggest {{VA link|Younis Khan}} could be removed as well although that leaves the list without any Pakistani batsmen. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::I realized if we just omit Pollock for now, we'll still be improving the balance away from batsmen and also making a small trim (especially in case the quota changes). That said, I noticed you had {{VA link|Javed Miandad}} in your alternate list, and his article makes it sound like he's a notable batsman. If a 1-for-1 swap between Khan and Miandad sounds right to you, you can just spin up a subproposal for that and I'll support it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The list contains too many American directors who are hardly vital to the world cinema. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Many seem to be taken straight from the 2015 Oscar shortlist.

The freed-up space can be used for renowned European film directors, like the ones I listed in the section just above (Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People#Film directors). --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

A TV producer? An actor known for Star Trek (2009) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)?

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. One of the most significant African-American film and television producers _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Purplebackpack89. GauchoDude (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Purplebackpack89. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. That's also not what he's known for. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2–2. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed {{VA link|Rocky}} and {{VA link|The Karate Kid}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Those two combined are enough to pass the bar IMO, Rocky is pretty much the Sports movie, and Karate Kid was very popular as well. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose, I think we should keep the directors of all VA5 films Makkool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–1. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
4. As someone from the UK his works aren't particularly well-remembered today Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
5. How much should how well-remembered something is today effect on the notability of a topic? Aren't the achievements at that time what counts? Makkool (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He was born in the US, but he contributed significantly to UK cinema (especially his Ealing Studios comedies are considered all-time greatest classics). Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 3–2. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Wrote Larry Clark's Kids and Ken Park.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Not enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. More influential on crticially accalaimed underground film, but that's also a subject worth covering outside of mainstream blockbusters - also note that Gummo and Spring Breakers, which he directed, are both acclaimed Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Changed to oppose, per above Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{reply to|Iostn|Makkool}} I'm quite surprised. I think this one is a clear "remove". Korine was very young when he wrote Kids, and then Larry Clark shot one more film based on Korine's scenario. Both films were directed by Larry Clark. And that's all, the films Korine directed himself aren't significant, let alone "vital". Why do we list some minor American directors when there are unlisted famous European directors, some of whom directed dozens of popular films? --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to list some "underground" directors (which Korine is not anyway), add Peter Greenaway. See #Add Peter Greenaway. In that section, I'm also nominating three very famous Italians directors (just three of the long line), each with 3 to 6 Oscar nominations. You can't compare Korine with them and with Mikhalkov (in the same section). --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think he's vital enough for being part of that 90's American indie and underground movement, even if the golden years of his career were a short span of time. He should propably be best categorised in screenwriters than directors any way. Peter Greenaway should certainly be added, I've noticed a clear lack of representation of UK people compared to Americans in many sections. Makkool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Duck Soup (Marx Brothers at their best) and some other screwball comedies.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. McCarey's films include many more than comedies (although the comedies are first-class). The Bing Crosby films alone stand out as classics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 3–2. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Deep Throat. Is this for real?

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, since he also directed The Devil in Miss Jones, which is also one of the most well-known represenatives of the Golden Age of Porn - also note that {{VA link|Deep Throat (film)}} is VA Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose, I think we should keep the directors of all VA5 films Makkool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Wherever or not he should be removed, I moved him to Adult, where he should be listed Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
2. I've understood that the Adult section should be only for performers in adult film, and that directors should be kept separately. Were there other porn directors in the list? Makkool (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
3. :Adult isn't listed as a sub-field of actors so I assumed it should also include directors - as it stands I think {{VA link|Rocco Siffredi}} and possibly a couple of others listed are more well-known as directors than performers and {{VA link|John Stagliano}} who I also moved/was proposed here has also been both an actor and director. I think that may leave Damiano as the only person on the list who is exclusively a porn director to begin with Iostn (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed some zombie and DC movies.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. When his best-known works are {{VA link|300 (film)}} and a few DC films, he isn't vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

• {{ping|GauchoDude}}, {{ping|CopiousAmountofCannons}}, {{ping|Kevinishere15}}, {{ping|lostn}}: Normally I don't ping people to participate in a discussion, but this one is one support from closure, and closing it would help archive a big section when this page is way too big ATM _pbp 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Kramer vs. Kramer. Great! But that's just one movie.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Last vote more than a week ago and two weeks since open. Regardless of how I vote, removal passes _pbp 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Directed Barbie. (Okay, there's also Little Women with Emma Watson in the filmography section. Maybe the movie is great. I have no idea. :-))

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. TOOSOON, I don't know how she is listed already.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. A little too soon. I wouldn't be surprised if we re add her at some point though. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support, for now - also directed Lady Bird (film), but I agree we may need to wait just slightly longer. To be honest, I would bet on her being readded though. Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

• I'd only support her being removed if Bigelow is kept? I can't remember if there are more than three female directors listed, but three (inc. Ava Duvernay) are up for removal out of not that many women in total. _pbp 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• : {{reply to|Purplebackpack89}} I have withdrawn the proposal to remove Bigelow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{reply to|Moscow Connection}} I think, at this juncture, it makes more sense to just close as removed rather than stall this another week by changing my vote. _pbp 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

According to the article, he "founded and owns the Evil Angel pornographic film studio."

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Not vital enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Wherever or not he should be removed, I moved him to Adult, where he should be listed Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Boyhood (2014).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Him and {{VA link|Steven Soderbergh}} were the leading directors of the 1990s independent cinema movement. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Makkool. A substantial body of work which breaks new ground in several aspects of film presentation. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Makkool. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Makkool. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed The Jazz Singer (1927).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. Would've supported, but {{VA link|The Jazz Singer}} is VA4 Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Selma (2014) and some Disney movie.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. In the mid 2010s she was hot with Selma and 13th (film). She does not have a continuing body of notable work. WP:TOOSOON or Too Little.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed La La Land (2016). But that's just one movie. And even that one is not "vital" by any means.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Not yet. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. Chazelle is listed for being the youngest-ever winner of the Academy Award for Best Director. He also wrote and directed Whiplash (2014 film), which I wouldn't argue is vital (yet) but is definitely often considered one of the greatest films of the previous decade. Chazelle is still writing and directing large-scale films, and I feel he would be re-listed anyway. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed some solid thrillers / psychological dramas like Seven (1995), The Game (1997), Fight Club (1999).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Would agree with the opinion of the lead sentence "Often described as one of the most preeminent directors of his generation". The language of the nom seems an endorsement rather than a remove. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. : {{reply|Randy Kryn}} I didn't want to diminish his work when writing the rationale. Rather, I tried to explain why he might have been added. If you or someone finds his contribution to world cinema vital, it's okay with me. My assessment may be wrong. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed Magnolia (1999).

;Support

1. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:_pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Have decided to strike my vote _pbp 17:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Completely unserious list if we remove PTA. Reducing him down to just 'directed Magnolia' is disingenuous when he has literally directed a movie on VA5. On TSPDT's aggregated list of best directors of all time (spanning 30000+ ranking lists and surveys from film critics and publications around the globe, arguably the most unbiased measure of vitality possible for directors), he is 60th [https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm]. We list well over 400 directors. We also list 53 directors in VA4, making him one good movie away from VA4, not in contention for being removed from VA5. He also directed {{VA link|There Will Be Blood}}, which is considered one of the greatest movies of the 21st century and is ranked as the 153rd greatest movie of all time by TSPDT. Aurangzebra (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. : {{reply to|Aurangzebra}} Okay, okay! I can withdraw this nomination if {{u|Makkool}} and {{u|Purplebackpack89}} don't mind. (I must confess I didn't see There Will Be Blood. And when I saw the movie mentioned in the lead, I was puzzled and eventually decided not to mention it in my rationale. After all, it didn't actually win an Oscar.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
   But in this case, we should add Mikhail Kalatozov who also appears on such lists of the greatest. Even though he directed just one prize-winning movie, The Cranes Are Flying. (Also I Am Cuba, but it was "discovered" later. And I don't know, I didn't even find it a "real movie", just some crazy camera work.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. One of the most celebrated and influential directors of the past thirty years. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Removed 3–2. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed some experimental short films.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose {{VA link|Meshes of the Afternoon}} is widely considered one of the most influential and greatest short films of all time. Deren's filmography is sparse but certainly influential. She's also one of the earliest, most significant female filmmakers. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Again, this is someone important outside of mainstream film Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2–3. Makkool (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed big-budget action movies like Predator (1987), Die Hard (1988), The Hunt for Red October (1990), Last Action Hero (1993).

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Die Hard}} is one of the most iconic and influential action movies, that combined with Predator is definitely enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose, I think we should keep the directors of all VA5 films Makkool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

Directed The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014). (Another one which is on the 2015 Oscar shortlist.)

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Seems to be thought of as a BFD _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Constantly brought up in discussions regarding directors. One of the most significant auteurs of the past thirty years. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. He's directed a lot more than that, why are you reducing so many directors to a single movie? Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Removed, 6-0 _pbp 19:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Directed Marty (1955), good, but that's just one movie.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. User:CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top

| status = withdrawn

| result = Withdrawn. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

The first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director. But The Hurt Locker that she won the Oscar for is hardly "vital" or even known enough.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. "The first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director" is enough to get her across the line. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above, and Point Break is also somewhat iconic. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. If we remove Gerwig and DuVernay, we should at least keep one prominent woman director from the US Makkool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Removed, 4-1 _pbp 15:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Directed Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) and The Sting (1973) and some other movies starring Paul Newman and/or Robert Redford. His latter movies weren't that successful, and he eventually retired.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support only a swap with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, oppose simple removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{Strikethrough|Weak oppose, those two movies were pretty important, I say weak because it pretty much is just those two}}, Support only a swap with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, oppose simple removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Would a swap for {{VA link|Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid}} be better? Iostn (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Would definitely support a swap with the film. Surprised that it's not included already. Makkool (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg|Removed 4-2. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The first person to win the Oscar for Best Director.

;Support

1. As nom. Moscow Connection (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
4. He made a decent number of films, but I'm not seeing any signs of cultural impact. He didn't seem to have a ton of staying power. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Changing to oppose, I think there's more reason to trim recent directors rather than older ones. Makkool (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. He seems to have been pretty prolific in his time. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

: {{ping|Makkool|Purplebackpack89}}
{{u|Aurangzebra}} pointed me to the TSPDT's aggregated list of best directors of all time ([https://www.theyshootpictures.com/borzagefrank.htm]), and Frank Borzage is on it. He is number 209.
I must say the list looks like something created by a bot based on some IMDb ratings. And it is very American-biased. But still... The page cites some rave reviews of his work. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:209th doesn't strike me as high enough to justify being listed _pbp 17:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

::Same. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}} _pbp 15:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Add Alec Jeffreys: English geneticist who is very notable for his work in developing {{VA link|DNA profiling}} techniques that are widely used in forensics.

;Add Frances Glessner Lee: Nicknamed the "mother of forensic science". Notable for developing miniature crime scene dioramas for training homicide investigators (Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death).

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 21:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support both – clearly more vital than most of the other forensic scientists listed. A bit strange that these are listed as social scientists? J947 ‡ ^edits 23:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support both Makkool (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support, and either Scientist section has the room. I agree with J947 we may want to rethink how we organize Forensics experts, though I'm not sure which is the right answer. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Add John Speed: 16th-17th century English cartographer and historian notable for his work in England and Wales at the time.

;Add Fra Mauro: 15th-century Venetian monk well-known for creating the Fra Mauro map.

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 21:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. As a geographer, love to see other people proposing geographers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support both Makkool (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support both, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. Harvey's already proposed above. Listing Fra Mauro map would be significantly better than listing the man. Not sure about Speed. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Suggest nominating Fra Maura map under geography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Under "Public relations, marketing and advertising theorists". Marketing theorist notable for popularizing the definition of marketing mix with an extensive publication list.

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 21:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}