Deletion of List of rulers of the Mossi state of Gwiriko

Comment: following the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama, it is established that these lists most likely fail  given that most of the names are non-notable and exist as just duplicates of lists found elsewhere online
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: so for the satisfaction of notability under these articles, under , we need either grouping discussion or at least most of those mentioned within to have independent notability. I don't have many access rights when it comes to either JSTOR or google books, but if anyone does, at least a quick glance at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I7UUAQAAIAAJ&q=rulers+of+Mossi+state+history+-wikipedia&dq=rulers+of+Mossi+state+history+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajIWNkfbaAhVkJMAKHTjuDqwQ6AEIVTAH African States and Rulers and  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HnRbA-pYcegC&lpg=PA156&dq=rulers%20of%20Mossi%20state%20history%20-wikipedia&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q=rulers%20of%20Mossi%20state%20history%20-wikipedia&f=false Historical Dictionary of Burkina Faso (I'd like to note on that one, it's pretty detailed, and very detailed on a good few - not a direct failure on ;  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:DICTIONARY)

Comment: all. And for that matter, I'm not at all convinced that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama was correctly decided, despite the unanimous comments for deletion. The sole argument here has been that lists consisting exclusively of redlinks are eligible for deletion. I'm not sure that's the case.  states that one of the criteria for inclusion for a stand-alone list is: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Rulers of recognized regions unquestionably meet the notability criteria, and these king lists are verifiable; they might have somewhat poor sourcing ''at the moment'', but there are entire books on the topic of African rulers. So then we're faced with the question of whether the lack of articles in this topic requires the list deletion. The same guideline document has something to say there, too: "'Creation guide' lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles, ''for the purpose of keeping track of which articles still need to be written''—don't belong in the main namespace." (emphasis mine). That's transparently not the purpose of these lists, and that's the only place in the list guidelines where I can see "everything is red" as a cause for deletion. Rather, these lists comprise redlinks nearly exclusively due to systemic bias. If all of the kings in List of rulers of Wales were redlinks, it would not stop that from being a valid article. Now, there's something to be said for handling these differently. Perhaps including the individual states as sections in a list of rulers of the Mossi people, for example, but that's an editorial determination, not a cause for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC)