List of titles held only by one person : It's not a notable subject or even a proper topic, it's just an indiscriminate list of crap; see WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Richard75 ( talk ) 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep .  social-media-driven deletion .  no thanks.  -- Deansfa ( talk ) 00:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That comment doesn't address the issue though.  Richard75 ( talk ) 00:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As nominator the onus should be on @ Richard75 to explain why it's indiscriminate or not notable; just saying so doesn't help other editors to understand your rationale (nor do words like "not...a proper topic" or "crap").  It doesn't fit into any of the categories listed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and this is a pretty tightly defined list.  Nor does it meet, say WP:NOTDIRECTORY which might have been a more relevant choice but still weak sauce.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Useful encyclopedic content.  ɱ (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:USEFUL is not a great 'keep' reason Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for failing WP:NLIST : never considered as a group.  Every life peer is a one-shot deal, and a lot of tinpot dictators gave themselves or were given grandiose titles, e.g. Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution , Eternal President .  Many officials of short-lived states would qualify, e.g. President of the Confederate States of America .  (Also delete Category:Titles held only by one person ?)  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend you make a good point about WP:NLIST as there's no source talking about this group as a group (as an aside, I'd love to see List of Embalmed Political Figures on Public Display which would definitely pass NLIST).  Maybe there's an article about these names - I gave it a quick look and couldn't find one but that's not conclusive.  If that's the sticking point, then I suppose I'd go with WP:AIR .  You're 100% right that this list illustrates how leaders give themselves grandiose titles, or states/kingdoms last so briefly only one person gets the title.  Aside from a few marginal cases, your slippery slope doesn't seem to have happened, though.   Maybe the answer is a better definition of the category, to exclude things like life peer names and self-proclaimed kingdoms (should exclude Emperor Norton and potentially modern folks like Romana Didulo ).  I'd be OK with Jefferson Davis making the list.  Oblivy ( talk ) 06:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  User:Iggypoptarts 21 August 2023 - completely disagree that this article isn’t noteworthy.  I believe it shows interesting parallels across various cultures and times and is a worthy jumping off point into a number of interesting figures and histories.  The article has also sat untouched for many months and only received criticism when it was highlighted by the twitter account Depths of Wikipedia.  Joyless and cynical to remove it without good reason — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Keep : contains worthwhile and interesting information. --- Ehrenkater ( talk ) 13:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:INTERESTING is not a great 'keep' reason Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per Clarityfiend.  Fails WP:NLIST , never treated together as a group.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies here.  Pilaz ( talk ) 09:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Last edit by Pilaz ( talk ) 09:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this feels rife with WP:OR , but plainly fails WP:NLIST .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it fits being on an encyclopedia.  Opok2021 ( talk ) 23:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What does that even mean?  Richard75 ( talk ) 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The criterion for inclusion in this list (titles, ranks, "other official positions of authority that have only ever been held by one person") has not itself received coverage and thus fails NLIST.  Determination of whether any given subject even meets this criterion seems to be arbitrary and at the discretion of individual editors rather than requiring sourced RS statements that explicitly note the title was a one-off.  There also does not appear to be a consistent distinction between epithets, purely descriptive terms, popular nicknames, sundry self-assigned designations by authoritarians, and actual official titles.  Nor is there any cohesion between the entries other than their holding "titles" of vastly differing importance, attestation, general recognition, legitimacy, and sourced acknowledgement of uniqueness.  A similar 20-page list of nicknames of European royalty and nobility was deleted last year on OR and LISTN grounds.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:NLIST ; enough arguments have been provided above.  Such a list hardly makes sense, and should be deleted.  Thanks.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails NLIST and INDISCRIMINATE per above.  No sources discuss the group of "titles that had one holder" as a group, for the obvious reason that this is a nonsensical set whose members have next to nothing to do with each other.  AryKun ( talk ) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete specifically as failing SELCRIT.  We cannot say that a list's criteria are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" when, as JoelleJay points out, There also does not appear to be a consistent distinction between epithets, purely descriptive terms, popular nicknames, sundry self-assigned designations by authoritarians, and actual official titles.  As an AtD , rename the list to List of offices held only by one person and purge the [bleep] like Emperor Norton and other self-aggrandisement (or in the case of Peron and Kim, posthumous-aggrandisement).  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete --- This fails NLIST and INDISCRIMINATE as given above.  The group has no coverage as a group (even if small subgroups do, these are groups such as "authoritarians who gave themselves honors" and not anyone who has been the sole holder of a title ).  The list here is so wide in scope as to include democratic offices which were abolished without a second holder, offices that do exist but still have their first holder, epithets made up by people who apply them to themselves ("Emperor Norton"), British peerages that were not inherited (there are thousands that could be added), etc.  D. Benjamin Miller ( talk ) 20:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iggypoptarts and Oblivy.  Emphrase ( talk ) 08:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no reason for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul ( talk • contribs ) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as failing WP:NLIST .   I am in agreement with

Discussion outcome: delete