Deletion of List of Wikipedia people

Comment: per  and as a list that lacks clear criteria for inclusion. It appears to include anybody with an article who is tangentially related. Some articles do not discuss the subjects' participation on Wiki, for example. Some are WMF employees. Other selections appear equally random. The sources presented at this AfD could work for an article on Wikipedia editing community ''in general''. It's a viable topic but not the subject of the article under discussion, which is a list of "people who Wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as per . "List of Wikipedia People"?  Seriously?  Might as well say, "List of people who breath... and Eat Food.".  Or perhaps, "List of People Not Dead, Who Wore Shorts". If they are notable enough to have their own article, and can have the slightest tangential relationship to WP, then ... A perfect example is Nicholson Baker, whose article doesn't even mention WP (or if it does, is so minute as to be inconsequential
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I wouldn't be entirely averse to repurposing this as a very specific list of people who have had a ''significant'' influence on Wikipedia/Wikimedia (Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Magnus Manske, even Carolyn Doran). The current {{tq|people associated with the online encyclopedia Wikipedia}} is hopelessly vague; at what point does "occasionally edits Wikipedia" become "associated with Wikipedia"? This kind of list is barely workable for things like TV programs, where at least it's clear whether someone has appeared on a given show or not. For something like Wikipedia, where we quite often don't even know if the person claiming to be a given celebrity is actually that person or not, where people regularly create accounts to edit a particular topic (usually themselves) but never participate any further, and where we have a governance system both internally and on the Board of Trustees which may as well have a revolving door, this is arbitrary and unworkable. Are Poppy Z. Brite, Peter Hitchens, and Sasha Grey "Wikipedia people" because they occasionally edit Wikipedia? ({{noping|Pzbrite}}, {{noping|Clockback}} and {{noping|Madjabuds}} if you're curious.) If not, why not, and why does whatever arbitrary line you're drawing to exclude them not constitute |original research?&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: fails : Has not {{green|been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources}}. If not  then almost, but a List Of People Who Are Connected To Wikipedia Somehow =/= a List Of Wikipedia People
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per  and . A list should either explain why it is notable in itself (this doesn't) or only contain notable people (this doesn't either). The article contains people whose articles have already been deleted owing to BLP concerns (I would tell you but ); other people are denoted purely as "x is y at the WMF" which doesn't really provide any value. I don't mind a category of people associated with WP, which would include Jimbo, Larry and one or two others, but I don't think a list is suitable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:BLP||WP:BEANS)

Comment: The topic passes .  Here is a selection of sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:IMPERFECT)