Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.

Further information

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

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Lists

Made in Romania (products)

Made in Romania (products) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Made in Romania (products)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Wikipedia is not a directory of products made in one country, or list of trademarks in one particular country. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - hopeless list of Romaniacruft. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi

List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Just a list and come within WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A good and comprhensive article on Mohammed Rafi already lists notable output - this is just a directory . Also possible copy vio from [1]  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - this is pure and simple WP:LISTCRUFT and is admittedly incomplete. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nearly every article in Wikipedia is incomplete, so that can't be used as a reason to delete, and "listcruft" is nothing more than a term of abuse rather than a reasoned argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems to be standard practice for major popular music stars to have complete discographies on Wikipedia, and you don't get much more major than Mohammed Rafi. This bare alphabetical listing is pretty useless in itself, but could become an acceptable article if it was sorted by year and film, and even better with the addition of the composers of the songs. We don't delete articles that have potential for improvement. The Mohammed Rafi article only scratches the surface of his output. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but merge a condensed list to Mohammed Rafi#List of Songs. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep needs improvement not deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per Ed Poor. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters

List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Entire article is in-universe. There are no references. However, the list of characters is to a notable book series. I'm nominating it for deletion in accordance with WP:FICT, but I may be wrong. Please give a consensus so I can learn. Thanks! -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Lists are preferable to individual character articles, and notable fictional franchises are typically allotted one such list. Since these characters overlap between books and movie, neither is a good merge target. Primary sourcing to meet V can be easily established, and I suspect the major characters have received some RS coverage in reviews. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no references in the article. And primary sourcing would be the books themselves, obviously. In book reviews, they can be reliable, but they can not be. What doesn't make sense to me is why source anything that isn't factual in the first place? The entire article is fictional. One would usually consider WP:MOSFICT, and write the character list from a real-world perspective. Something that is very difficult to do. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What other character lists have you compared with? It sounds like you're looking at this in a vacuum, rather than seeing about how these sorts of problems have been handled in ohter instances? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A worthy argument. I can't help but notice Lists of characters in a fictional work. If you notice, most of the articles there have no summaries about the character. They are just lists. However, a lot of them also do have summaries. I believe the best choice is to let this one sit close with the others. I'm closing this discussion. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Litéra Software

List of Litéra Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Litéra Software" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The subject of the list appears to be products for a non-notable organization. The article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the stand-alone list criteria. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 07:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I noticed that the company's article has yet to be uploaded by the original editor, with it remaining on their namespace. I'd also like to make aware that there is another editor adding the company Litéra [2] (and claims of the company holding copyrights) to various articles. I mention this because if the company is non-notable, there is going to be an immense amount of cleanup and checking up to do. I'm a little leery of this, especially since the other editor started editing on the same day for the same company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I can only find press-releases, their own sites, sites with promotional stories which allow uploading of own articles and directories. Is included in businessweek directory though, but otherwise no good secondary sources. Thus, it seems to by non-notable and promotion-intended. JHSnl (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of airports in India. Duplicate article with an obvious redirect. No need to drag this out. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of international airports in India

List of international airports in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of international airports in India" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Redundant list. There already exists an extensive list of airports in India. — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect As a possible search term. No need for an AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to List of airports in India It's a plausible search term. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of airports in India. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of cricket incidents

List of cricket incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of cricket incidents" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No clear indication as to what's an "incident". Several of these may be notable, but without a criterion for inclusion, the concept as a whole isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• delete WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues, just going thrrough the list there are num,ber which shouldnt be there, because they are unfounded allegations or not criminal matters. WP:TABLOID Gnangarra 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment actually when I consider what a list of cricket incidents is details I'd expect it to cover are on field events, like Lillee with the aluminium bat, Trevor Chappell underarm bowling incident, Alderman breaking his shoulder during a pitch invasion, Sydney pitch invasion 1920's, match fixing, chucking, even bodyline. It should be renmaed as List of cricketers involved in off field incidents Gnangarra 14:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. I think you can also add WP:NOTDIRECTORY to it as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - as per all of the above. Without criteria for inclusion, how can this be maintained? Eddie.willers (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe we could have a list of notable cricket incidents including, for example, bodyline and the ball of the century, but this article doesn't do what it says on the tin: it is a list of non-cricket incidents involving cricketers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes

Articles for deletion/List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes (3rd nomination)

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This is a list of game show episodes with no references to reliable sources. Determination of production numbers and production order appears to have been obtained almost entirely through original research. Renominating in light of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (3rd nomination). RJaguar3 | u | t 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - the article has absolutely no reliable sources for verifiability. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - In the last nomination of this article, it was a non-admin closure for Keep. This discussion seems to be centered around the references. TV.com is a reference: http://www.tv.com/shows/legends-of-the-hidden-temple/episodes/ Notable TV Shows are predestined to have episode lists in some place. This one is no exception. Also, the is not true because there is one external link. But its a primary source, so I can understand your point. References can be easily found via the internet. There should be no reason for an article to die if its notable, yet unreferenced. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • TV.com is not a reliable source. For one, the airdates are completely unverified and contradict known information. The most egregious example is their claim that Eps. that they number 1 through 14 aired 11/29/92, almost a year before Legend's premiere. As I understand it, the numbering appears to have come from fans doing their own research on reruns of the show in 2007. No reliable source has stood behind this numbering. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Manglish vocabulary

Manglish vocabulary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Manglish vocabulary" – news · books · scholar · free images)

A language dictionary is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT. I can't find any precedent for an unprescriptive list of words. There is already a general article on Manglish, which should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - My concern is that this is unsourced. I'd advise following precedent employed previously for glossaries of similar dialects, whatever that may be. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of organizers

List of organizers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of organizers" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I suspect that this was meant to be a list of union or community organizers but have no way to tell. See Category:Community organizers. The creator hasn't edited for several years, and Barack Obama is included. With no inclusion criteria I think this would be better gotten rid of. Moondyne (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Could contain almost anyone. Unmanagable indiscriminate list. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - There is indeed a way to tell — this is a list of union organizers, to which somebody wrongly added Obama. Although I realize that it's generally not good to change names of articles once they're reeled in to AfD, I'm going to boldly do that (and knock Barry off the list), since the principle objection here is that the name is indiscriminate. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Upon further review, that list mixes political organizers and union organizers. Both of those lists would be fine, in my opinion, the combined list is not. Best to blow it up to clear the way for properly delineated lists, in my view. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. & others. Too vague & WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--JayJasper (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Ke$ha

List of awards and nominations received by Ke$ha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of awards and nominations received by Ke$ha" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This list already exists the primary Kesha article. There doesn't seem to be a reason to recreate it somewhere else. Callanecc (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does seem excessive. Per nom, recreated content already found in parent article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment Forgot to add: She has only won ONE award. One. It isn't like we need a giant spreadsheet to keep up with her winning tally. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to awards section of article, same as was done with List of awards and nominations received by Kesha. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Separating this awards section from the article allows for further expansion of both and seems to be done logically. References need to be moved from the Ke$ha article into this new list, but other than that I don't see a reason to delete it.--StvFetterly(Edits) 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a long enough list to be a subarticle. Stedrick (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - improper recreation of an article already deleted and merged with consensus at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Kesha. She has not received any significant awards since then so consensus is still established. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, merging any relevant content to Kesha. Almost all of the articles content already exists there in a more concise format. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge/Redirect - Per Lakeshade - there's already prior consensus on this, and her list of awards really isn't that extensive that it needs to be put in it's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete per Lakeshade. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (3rd nomination)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)" – news · books · scholar · free images)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1990s (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Procedural renomination per Deletion review. I am neutral on this issue. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to the individual listings for Hot 100 number-one singles per year (e.g. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Music is frequently identifies by the decade in which it is recorded, so this is a perfectly valid list by that standard. Stedrick (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep These articles meet most of the qualifications for WP:LIST. In addition, they also contain information not available in the individual listings for Hot 100 number-one singles per year. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that including the label and other info is WP:IINFO. Most other lists include just the date of the chart, plus the name of the song and artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the record labels are notable enough to be included in the Billboard charts - this external link suggests that Billboard magazine would agree with me on that (It is also worth noting that the label companies also appear in our UK Singles Chart number ones series of articles). In addition, it is worth noting that these articles also contain important statistical information which does not appear anywhere else in Wikipedia, which in my opinion would be of value to many people. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is a content fork and "content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided". Information that is discriminate can be merged to the list for the individual year or List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:LIST. There is no content fork here, and while there is some overlapping information with other lists, there is also separate information (which is not at all an indiscriminate collection of information) and so the lists are not redundant. Rlendog (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - same reasons as before. Info is redundant. - eo (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that there may be something of a content fork here, although, if we do have to get rid of one set of articles, I would personally prefer to keep the decades lists – they contain relevant information not readily available elsewhere on Wikipedia; information that an encyclopedia reader could quite conceivably want to look up. For example, without these lists, where might a reader find out which artist spent the most number of weeks at the top of the Hot 100 chart during the nineties? (It was Mariah Carey, if anyone's wondering.) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional music groups

List of fictional music groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of fictional music groups" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Deprodded with "useful list". This list is in-universe, unsourced, indiscriminate and of dubious out-of-universe relevance. Far too many works have fictional music groups — is it really relevant that we need to know the name of the fictional group who sang "Squirrels in My Pants" on an episode of Phineas and Ferb? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Most are non-notable. The problem is that the ones that are notable seem to not be fictional. I think a list of notable fiction about music would be more useful than a list of fictional acts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep As with many lists of fictional things, the issue is not the validity of the article, but the writing style and inclusion criteria. Entries should feature prominently in notable fiction, such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and the band in Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille. Ma^t_chups 03:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete an article on the treatment of bands and the music industry in fiction would probably be great. This, though, is patently trivial and unlikely to ever be referenced with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Normally, a list of fictional X would be of use, but this is just an indiscriminate listing of every possible mention of a music group in fiction with no added information, and no sources. JIP | Talk 06:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • this sounds like an argument to keep and improve. Ma^t_chups 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Nom, like several other previous ones by this particular nominator, contains several dubious statements: "In universe" is pretty much inapplicable to a one-phrase summary of each band. "Unsourced" can easily be fixed by using the references at the target article, which the nominator has not done. "Indiscriminate" is patently false: this is a list of fictional bands, where the intersection is logical. Other arguments advanced are not relevant, such as the notability of individual elements. These arguments have been rejected time and time again, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional computers. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, but cut down to contain only sourced, notable examples (i.e., only the blue links). I agree with the nominator that as it is this list is pretty trivial, but it would be useful if it was simply a means of navigation between existing articles (and we do have enough articles on fictional bands to make such a list). Robofish (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep If they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, have coverage of them somewhere, are reoccurring in a notable series, have sold a lot of merchandise with them on it, or whatever other things those working on the article decide to use as reasons to keep things listed, then they should be kept. Anything that people decide shouldn't be on there, can be removed. Dream Focus 12:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Jclemens' reasoning. I'd respectfully disagree with a requirement that every entry has to be the name of a separate article; for example, I'd also allow fictional bands that are significant elements of a notable work or would be possible search terms (e.g., the Alabama Porch Monkeys in Bamboozled, to grab one of the (alphabetically) first examples that catches my eye). But those parameters are more appropriately left to post-AfD editor discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, largely per nom. Maybe making this a category instead of a full-blown page would make more sense if the navigational functions are to be fulfilled...but even there, this seems like something that is a bit too broad to not end up as an unwieldy mess.Tyrenon (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete too broad of a criteria for inclusion makes for indiscriminate and nonnotable lists. "Music groups in fiction" just may be a notable subject, but the last thing needed as an addendum to that is a list of every fictional music group in Wikipedia. A general discussion of the subject is welcome; a list of every thing we have on it is not. WP:LISTCRUFT ThemFromSpace 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic content. If the items in it figure significantly in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. They don't have to be the name of a separate article: access to content within articles is also important, and these lists provide such access. What they do have to be is significant in thework, not just something in the background. What has to be notable is the work itself, of course. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Pols in Ahmedabad

List of Pols in Ahmedabad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Pols in Ahmedabad" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep- Pols of Ahmadabad are not only notable but they have historical value. Have a look Pols have much to teach new Ahmedabad and this also Ahmedabad heritage set to conquer Spain. I would further request that this list is incomplete so if anyone has anymore info please complete the list. I have posted the same comment on article's talk page.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: There are many articles available which discuss the pols of Ahmedabad. However, not all of them are notable by themselves. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mmm. Having a list of places is perfectly reasonable - see eg/ Neighbourhoods of Delhi - regardless of the notability of individual members of the set. Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet on India

Fact sheet on India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fact sheet on India" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No other country has corresponding page as information should be included within main country article if relevant. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand the policy grounds for this deletion request. The page seems to be validly encyclopedic, or at least almanac, information; it doesn't obviously belong on some other project, and the facts are verifiable. It may be that this page is simply the first instance of a type of page that could be profitably added to each country as soon as someone gets bothered to do it. As Lord Featherstonehaugh-Fanshawe wrote in The Great Western Railway Co. v. Haddock, "there is no precedent for anything until it has been done for the first time." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep

Simply because no other country has corresponding page is not a sufficient reason to decide what content must be compiled and which pages are appropriate on wikipedia.

The reasons proposed for deletion are not listed as wiki's guiding reasons for deletion. Instead of deleting this, I encourage that such pages be created for all countries.

FWIW, tabular fact sheet pages of the kind similar to Fact sheet on India are all over wikipedia, many highly viewed per day. See these for example:

• List of countries by sex ratio
• Lists of countries and territories
• Table of World Heritage Sites by country
• Table of voting systems by country
• Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008

etc.

Finally, I submit for matter of record that Reichsfurst originally marked the article for deletion with the following claim: "Information contained in article on India - merge would be unnecessary. This seems to basically be information copied from another site."

The proposal and reasons for deletion above, submitted on 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC) by Reichsfurst, have not answered my humble question to Reichsfurst. I asked the wiki contributor - "please identify where this information is available, and which site is it copied from?" I have yet to get an answer from Reichsfurst. If an answer is provided, and it is persuasive, I will happily reconsider my position. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion please note that ApostleVonColorado is the page's creator, which he has not made clear in his above comment. Reichsfurst (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete despite the above user's filibuster, I'm not convinced. This article presents nothing that isn't already in India or any of the related articles. "Fact sheets" are just plain not how we do things around here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd agree, this title does the article no favors; something like India (statistical summary) might be more becoming. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I like 'change the title' suggestion. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just re-read the article on India. Most category metrics of Fact sheet on India are not mentioned. A few that are, do not have the relative basis - that is how many countries is the ranking based on. Being 39th of 40 countries is contextually different than being 39th of 212 countries. Adding relative basis info into India, or merging all the current or future category metrics into wiki article on India may not be appropriate. I am not convinced that economic metrics such as 'Total reserves (includes gold, current US$)' belongs inside a general article such as India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment One thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data, a fair bit of which seems estimated or subjective. The article almost seems like it should be titled 'The World Bank's development indicators for India'. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, 60% of the stats are from world bank database, 40% elsewhere. Please note alternate independent sources of data for various categories exist, e.g. IMF, UNICEF, WHO, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc databases. Please see WP:VNT - the guideline I followed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really just want to stress that this isn't about criticising the work which you have done AVC, I'm just not sure that this is the place to display it and the information it contains or a reference to the data could be inserted elsewhere. Reichsfurst (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate all the comments, as well as reasoned arguments that go with "keep" or "delete." Note that the article was created less than 24 hours ago. My intent was to add sufficient explanatory text, and some context, to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. For example, not just rank with basis, but how the metric compares with the best in the world, the world average, etc.; plus, what each metric means in a context that the general reader can appreciate. I envision future wiki editors will add more tables and update these tables not only for India vis a vis the world, but also for each state/region/territory within the country - again, with context for the general reader. I feel tables enhance readability of statistical data lists; this when presented with context is validly encyclopedic. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I simply dont understand why this has been nominated on which wikipedia policy? If there is no similar article for other country doesnt mean this one also to be deleted. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep - There is nothing in the article that is against Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please don't waste our time. Tinpisa (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• keep - fairly informative article, fulfilling all criteria to be on wikipedia, its a fact sheet not advertisemet. we should try to create one for other countries like china, us and uk too. Whileships savedhead (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina

Masonic Lodges of North Carolina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Masonic Lodges of North Carolina" – news · books · scholar · free images)

WP:IINFO, barely sourced. No other state has a list like this. None of the individual lodges is notable, and there are so many of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep That 'otherstuffexists" (or "does not exist") is a weak rationale. "The list is too long" is also not part of any policy. The material is actually sourced, and is a rational length compared with where it had been, and I rather think that is sufficient. The topic, moreover, has a number of implications including the "Negro question" described in [3] specifically concerning the relationship of NC lodges with others. [4] also shows in what way this article certainly could be expanded, and absolutely is "notable" for sure. Collect (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that "other stuff exists" or "does not exist" is a weak rationale. I will look at the books linked by Collect above and investigate expanding the list. In the mean time I will work on fixing the broken cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also the statement User:TenPoundHammer at "No other state has a list of every masonic lodge." on my talk page does not hold water as maybe the reason no other grand lodge has a list of every lodge in its jurisdiction is because no one has taken the time to create those lists. If there were to be a list for every grand lodge, then one of those lists would have to be the first one created. Here it is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article is in SERIOUS need of some more citation and should be based on more than 1 source. But I'm going to !vote keep if just to prevent articles from spinning up for each of these lodges. RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I'm looking, and I'm not finding reliable sources that discuss Masonic lodges of North Carolina in particular in significant detail. The sources Collect mentions above are very short and really don't establish notability. Another point: this isn't about whether freemasonry is notable; it's whether a list of lodges in North Carolina is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There are several thousand Masonic lodges in the United States (IIRC, Virginia has somewhere over 200). Most are non-notable (the exceptions likely being a few of the very first lodges, maybe a few of the lodges in major cities, and those in notable locations). If a list of perhaps a dozen lodges that were notable could be generated, then such a list would have its place; as it is, if a state has a few lodges of note, then pages could be made for those lodges and linked to the state's Grand Lodge page (assuming that it exists). However, a mass listing of every lodge in a given state seems like a rather indiscriminate collection of information (and I shudder to think of entering "lodge #6" and getting a disambiguation page asking me which of sixty lodges I want).Tyrenon (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fixed Dead Link I fixed the dead link to the list on the GLNC website, but I doubt any of you care. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (but userfy) - Wikipedia is not a directory (even a historical directory). Also, notability is not established - for stand-alone list articles, the topic of the article is a group of people, places or things. We must be able to demonstrate that this topic is notable - ie that the group is notable as a group. To do this we must cite sources that talk about the group - as a group. Such sources need to discuss the group with some degree of substance. We would therefore need sources that actually discuss "Masonic Lodges of North Carolina" as a distinct concept. I do not believe such sources exist. There are sources that discuss the history of specific lodges on the list. There are sources that discuss the history of Freemasonry in the State. There are sources that discuss the history of the Grand Lodge. But I do not believe there are sources that discuss all the lodges of NC as a distinct group separate from Freemasonry or the Grand Lodge. I would normally suggest that the list be merged into a more generalized article (say "Freemasonry in North Carolina")... but given the length of the list in question, that would be impractical. Finally, I know the editor who created this list spent a lot of time and effort on it. I applaud that effort. I suggest userfication so he does not completely lose his hard work. I would encourage him to create a personal webpage for the material, or perhaps contact the Grand Lodge and see if they would be interested in hosting it on their website. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Wonderful post - but specifically Wikipedia does not require "list articles" to be sourced to articles about the list! If that were the case, there are hundreds (or more) of deletable lists. So we are left with: Is the material reliably sourced? Yes. Do other reliable sources treat "Masonry in NC" as a topic? Yes. Is Masonry per se a notable topic in US history? Yes. Together those points allow this article to remain. Collect (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I am not saying the source has to be about the list... I am saying it has to be about the group that the list is listing. These are not the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - no indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. I don't have a problem with sourcing; we can probably find more and that would make it better, but that wouldn't indicate notability. I'd rather see articles about each individual lodge if notability could be established. And, indeed, if any significant fraction of them were to be deemed notable individually...then this list might be itself notable.  Frank  |  talk  17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination statement fundamentally misunderstands WP:IINFO; all "X in one (geographical location)" is not indiscriminate, nor is an exhaustive listing a "directory" in the sense used by WP:NOT#DIR. Sources present seem adequate and authoritative. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... I see no difference between this list and, say, a List of McDonald's Restaurants in North Carolina. Surely WP:NOT#DIR would apply if someone tried to create that article, so I think has to apply here.

In any case, the governing guideline here is WP:ORG - and in particular WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, which indicates that local chapters of larger organizations are rarely considered notable. If these lodges are not notable on an individual basis, how can we say they are notable enough to be listed as a group? Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of schools in Mexico

List of schools in Mexico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of schools in Mexico" – news · books · scholar · free images)

See WP:NOT#STATS Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 02:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Keep - You're a bit trigger happy aren't you? It's only just been created. The list is obviously under development and, judging by the template at its foot, is part of a wider project to list schools in the North Americas. Mind you, my finger will be itching to delete any redlinks :) Sionk (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've changed my 'vote' to keep. Information is being added to the list. Discussion about its scope can be continued on its Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article should not attempt to list all the schools in Mexico, nor even all the secondary-level schools in Mexico. That would make it too large to deal with easily. The list should be broken up at least by state. This page should be, at most, a list of lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm saying that most schools would not be notable and this should be a category, not an article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles that are reflected in a category can also be reflected in lists. Lists and cats are not mutually exclusive. See our relevant guideline, which states:

  "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page."

  Also, I note that we have for example List of schools in the United Kingdom, List of schools in England, List of schools in France, List of schools in Germany, List of schools in India, Lists of schools in New Zealand. (Otherstuffexists allows us to look at other stuff, if it is not the sole reason presented in a discussion). As to whether this should retain its current form, or be a list of lists, that is as Sionk points out a discussion better had on the article talk page, as it is not a reason to delete the list but rather an argument that it would be better if its format/content were revised.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This page is a recreation of content removed (with the agreement of the majority of editors) from Foreign relations of South Sudan. See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for the full discussion of why this content is seen to be misleading and unencyclopedic.
In summary, South Sudan's independence is uncontroversial and so its international recognition is not notable (it cannot be compared to International recognition of Kosovo for example), especially because every country in the world recognised it when it was unanimously admitted to the United Nations.
Some countries have published welcoming statements or more formal recognition documents, but these are not necessary for diplomatic recognition to take place. This article just lists those countries that have published some sort of statement on the Internet (directly or via a news report), that we have been able to find. There are lots of missing countries, which makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is, with all countries recognising it. The list of recognition dates here is therefore misleading and unnecessary.
The details of diplomatic recognition dates are notable, but are a duplication of the data given in Foreign relations of South Sudan, and so also unnecessary in this article.
Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed without consensus from Foreign relations of South Sudan in Nov2011[5] (present there since the August merge from here) and was now put here as compromise. The content is notable, encyclopedic and sourced. Utilized sources are from MFAs around the world or news reports about official diplomatic acts of various governments. We have such lists for other cases elsewhere (such as here) and such lists of diplomatic recognitions (and relations) are kept on official MFA websites [6], [7], [8], etc.

Nobody claims that South Sudan independence is controversial - on the contrary, this is clearly stated in the article: "South Sudan was admitted in the UN on 14 July 2011 without a vote[6] or objections risen by its members.[7][8]", "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."

We - Bazonka and the other editors involved in this dispute - are editors contributing to many of the articles related to the List of states with limited recognition (such as Kosovo mentioned by Bazonka) - and that's why there is such inclination to "count recognitions" and to assume that "unless a source for recognition by X is found it's assumed that X supports the opposing-claimant position, e.g. Serbia against Kosovo, etc.". The case here is different. South Sudan is not like Kosovo, it's like Montenegro, where we also keep list of diplomatic recognitions.

Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. See the sources provided above.

The list here is just like similar lists MFAs around the world publish for their states or like similar lists elsewhere in Wikipedia. The notion that "diplomatic recognition is irrelevant" contradicts the fact that this act of foreign policy is conducted by governments around the world, published on MFA websites and reported by news agencies. All of them find it relevant, but few people around don't, because they personally aren't interested in it since South Sudan doesn't have a "recognition problem" and they are only interested in cases like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. "states with limited recognition".

"There are lots of missing countries" - Bazonka, if you have a source for some missing country, let's add it. This isn't a reason to delete all that aren't missing. Same for the claim against the quality of some sources - if a particular source is found to be not useful, by Bazonka or others, let's remove it. This isn't a reason to delete all others.

"makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is" - in the eyes of editors accustomed to Kosovo maybe, but the same list on the Montenegro article doesn't do that for the general reader (and editors there). My personal opinion is that on the contrary - having so many explicit diplomatic recognitions in so short period of time (compare with the MFA sources I gave above - other countries required much more time to get to such numbers) shows how big acceptance and importance South Sudan was given by the international community. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The important bits are already produced at Foreign relations of South Sudan, so this is a duplication. The rest is a bunch of random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" the independence of South Sudan. It's useless information of no encyclopaedic value. It's also a textbook-case FORK. Nightw 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  If there are "random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" .." instead of dates of "diplomatic recognition" those specific items should be removed. But diplomatic recognition is of course notable and encyclopedic - see links to MFA lists I gave above. Wikipedia also has other such lists - see my comments above. It's not a fork, but an unfinished split at most. And if you stop claiming false consensus I won't object to restore/merge it back. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per, well, previous consensus really. It's a misleading article. CMD (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  The linked discussion is from August 2011 about merge of two articles. The result was [9] kept until November 2011 when Night w deleted the notable sourced information falsely claiming consensus, when there wasn't such. Few edits afterwards I restored the content with the discussion on the talk page continuing to the present day. The current new page was created as compromise (see here) so that the other article doesn't become too long. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I objected to its speedy deletion because there is likely to be someone who objects to its deletion, and it did not qualify under WP:CSD. That being said, these list-style articles, where another on the same topic already exists, is highly likely to become a POV fork. In my experience, unless lots of people watch spin-off articles, they tend to decay into random tables, often pushing one party's point of view. If a few editors can agree to "adopt" this article, I would not object to its being kept. Otherwise, I am leaning towards deletion of it for that reason. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  The problem is that the consensus decision to merge was "hijacked" by few editors pushing to delete notable sourced information instead of merging it. They have done this months after the merge was fully completed, but are persistent in deleting without consensus. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. If that isn't successful, merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or restore relevant column of [10]. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: See also the previous discussion about a similar page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan. Current AfD noted to editors who haven't yet expressed opinion above. Japinderum (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Japinderum (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge or keep. In the case of newly independent countries (compare Foreign relations of Montenegro), the order and timestamp of recognition is relevant even in non-Kosovo cases. I see no reason to delete this content. —Nightstallion 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep/ Merge It is a useful encyclopaedic list of information. It could however be merged into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". After reading through this AfD, I have not seen any compelling reasons to delete this content. IJA (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ian, the reason is that all countries have recognised South Sudan already. This is therefore not a "list of countries that have recognised"; it is a "list of countries that have released statements about South Sudan that have been published on the internet that we've been able to find". It's meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a list of explicit official diplomatic recognition foreign policy acts. This is different from the "obvious recognition by all" (deduced from UN admission without objections or welcome statements) that you refer to. About the "that we've been able to find" part - included in the article are all presently known sources - if you have more - let's add those, but there is no reason to delete what we already have. Japinderum (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/ Merge This is very encyclopedic and useful list. Keep per IJA and Nightstallion. Sure, it doesnt matter should be have separate article or not, i even prefer merge into Foreign relations of South Sudan, but this list should definitively be kept. Every new nation or state should have this list on wiki, if you ask me.. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep as this was an important international event. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Rationale To further expand on Bazonka's opening above, there's nothing at all notable about countries recognising South Sudan. Notable was Sudan's assertion that it would be the first country to recognise South Sudan. Notable also was the speed at which South Sudan entered the international community, joining the UN within days of independence.

Japinderum has been trying to create a distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country. While one statement may be relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries (although in many cases I doubt it's important at all), a list made from a mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet is not encyclopaedic or useful. South Sudan isn't in a situation where it need to go around seeking recognition, like Kosovo. Neither is it in a situation where although it is in the international community it is still legally unrecognised by some, like Israel. Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan. By creating a list of recognitions, we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan, and with this implying those on the list haven't. This is made even worse by the map, which shows countries which have granted "recognition and diplomatic relations", those who have merely granted "recognition", and of course the others, in grey.

Since 14 July, and very arguably since 9 July, South Sudan has been a fully recognised state. The Chronology of diplomatic relations is found on the main foreign relations page. The Chronology of recognitions is misleading and unnotable, and based on disparate internet sources. All the notable moments of recognition will go perfectly well on the main Foreign Relations page too. This article implies that countries not on the list, and grey on the map, do not recognise South Sudan, and implies all the baggage that goes with that. This article is a great disservice to readers not up to the level of political nuance Japinerdum seems to be trying to employ. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the act of diplomatic recognition is "relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries". That's why governments do it, MFAs keep such lists and news agencies report it.

CMD continues to avoid the issue - I don't speak about "distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country". I speak about distinction between the explicit official foreign relations act of diplomatic recognition and the "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections), "welcome notes" and similar notions he refers to.

"mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet" - again, it's fine if you object usage of a particular "bad" source, but requesting deletion of all sources (most of which aren't contributing to a "mishmash") isn't.

"Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan." (e.g. "obvious recognition") - the same for Montenegro or Croatia, but this doesn't diminish the importance of the acts of diplomatic recognition, and because of this importance for foreign relations their MFAs (and others) keep lists of the official recognitions (see above).

"we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan" - no, we're telling that the countries on the list have taken the explicit official act of diplomatic recognition

"with this implying those [not] on the list haven't." - no we're not implying anything. Just as we're not implying such thing on the Montenegro list and the MFAs I linked above aren't implying such thing on their websites. On the contrary - it's clearly stated that "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."

"diplomatic recognition" and "obvious recognition"/"lack of objections" are different. Lack of diplomatic recognition may be assumed to be (mistakenly or not) for lack of obvious recognition/presence of objections only for problematic cases/states with limited recognition like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. and it seems some editors, who are accustomed to working on those problematic articles try to apply that logic here.

Actually, removing the diplomatic recognitions (~115) from the list makes South Sudan appear "bare" and "less accepted, than it really is", because it leaves listed only the cases that already reached the next step, diplomatic relations (~40), which is much lower. Japinderum (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The recognitions we found were basically statements on websites, hardly amazing acts of foreign relations. Again, you're trying to use an extremely nuanced point here, but one I feel readers will fail to grasp and one which I don't think your sources substantiate.

As for the implications, their being recognised is exactly what we're implying, and I'm not just assuming this. In the past, many users have come from the Montenegro and Croatia pages trying to have them added onto the List of states with limited recognition.

You've provided no sources which show the difference between what you call "obvious recognition" and "diplomatic recognition". I would argue that Israel has obvious recognition from the states around it (it's quite hard to ignore), but it clearly doesn't have diplomatic recognition from all of them.

Removing diplomatic recognitions doesn't make it less bare. It makes it as bare as perhaps France, or Canada, which I'm sure you agree are fully accepted. Or Bhutan, if you want an example of a state with few diplomatic missions. Bhutan's diplomacy is indeed bare, but we're not going around saying how it is only recognised by this many countries.

In the end, if you have a map showing countries that have recognised South Sudan, it's only common sense that those not coloured haven't recognised it. And that is wrong. CMD (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The acceptable sources are government/MFA statements about diplomatic recognition and news reports about those. If some sources are of the kind "welcome note" this is a different thing and shouldn't be utilized. I think that's clear.

As you can see Montenegro or Croatia aren't added to the List of states with limited recognition. Somebody may "request" such a thing, but it doesn't go trough. Same for South Sudan. If you think that somebody could still mistaken obvious and diplomatic recognition or think that South Sudan has a recognition problem like Kosovo - let's add an additional clarification - it's that simple. Same for the map - it's is about diplomatic recognitions and relations, not about obvious recognitions.

What about Israel? It's quite clear - we have sources for countries that made explicit statements about NOT recognizing it as state at all, so they give it neither "obvious" nor diplomatic recognition.

Also, any source about the act of diplomatic recognition, especially after previous UN admission without objections shows the difference between "your" obvious recognition and "mine" diplomatic recognition. The MFA links I gave above are full of recognition dates after the UN admission date.

Not showing the diplomatic recognitions (and their dates) deprives the reader from getting the chronology picture. South Sudan gathered so many diplomatic recognitions in such a short period of time. This is seen in the chronology and wouldn't be seen otherwise. Compare this number/period to Montenegro's for example. Japinderum (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources at all make your point about differences in recognition, not without some synth or OR. You haven't defined what you call "obvious recognition" yourself, let alone back it up with any source. The MFA links above give no context as to what they mean. They do however provide a nice source for those countries, so it may be important to them. None have yet been provided with South Sudan, and its quite easy to see that the Yugoslav MFAs are in the minority in regards to keeping a list. CMD (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Ron 1987 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Merge Redundant fork of Foreign relations of South Sudan, but has some encyclopedic information worth keeping. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A record of dipolomatic recogniton for any state is notable, the US state department web page keeps a record of its own diplomatic recognitions for example.XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Link? CMD (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be found here, it is complete for all current states though some extinct states are lacking on the page. [[11]]

• Keep or Merge --Avala (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. Relevant information with encyclopedic value that should remain, but not in a stand-alone article per rationale of nom.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. It's a rehash of the information in the Foreign Relations article, but a rehash that's been greatly appended and updated, so merging it back ("de-forking?") would also address any issues of incompleteness one might have with that article as well. ChristopherGregory (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as notable Th order is important (as som were at first reluctant). Furthermore all states havent done so yet. Or a transcluded template can go on the redirectd page.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Seems like a decent compromise solution to me. I don't think this information is terribly useful, but it might be a good reference for someone else. I'm just happy to have it off the Foreign relations of South Sudan page, where it was creating a mess. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: The main argument for keeping, as I see it, is the list of recognition dates. However, Wikipedia is not a place to store raw data. Encyclopedic content (all of the article's seven cohesive sentences concerning universal recognition and admission to the UN) is already present in Foreign relations of South Sudan#Chronology of relations. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (point 3) applies to everything else straight on. Whatever happens, just don't stuff this huge thing into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". --illythr (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, albeit weakly per XavierGreen and Kudzu1. James F. (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Dufo (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per XavierGreen. This is a standard entry for any encyclopedia, much like Relations pages. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point that all countries have recognised South Sudan following it's unanimous admittance to the UN. All we're reporting is those who have published pleasantries on the internet. This is absolutely meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Again - if some source is about "pleasantries" it should be removed. The encyclopedic content here is the list of "diplomatic recognitions" - a foreign policy act different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objection, pleasantries and welcome notes, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All that is needed for diplomatic recognition is some form of diplomatic activity in which the two states or polities recognize each other as soveriegn peers. A treaty, diplomatic note, or simply the accreditation of a diplomatic agent is all that is needed to establish diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it could be anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity. Outback the koala (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan since South Sudan is a large and new country in the world. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. While a list of states which recognize South Sudan isn't notable (since presumably they all do) the dates of recognition are as per the arguments above. TDL (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices

European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article appears to be a kind of glossary of eurospeak. Fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep We need a better title, but I think it is nonetheless sufficient important as an auxiliary aid in understand the articles in the encyclopedia to be kept here somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no rule against glossaries on Wikipedia; in fact, they are specifically recognized as a legitimate variety of list. See MOS:LIST#List articles, as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries (currently undergoing a revision). Although not currently titled as such, this article is a useful list, mainly populated by (and providing concise and helpful explanations of) blue-linked terms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. My $0.05: the article can be useuful for quickly findig relevant articles on the European Union. I'd use the following rule of thumb; anything that is factual, informative and helps readers quickly find what they are looking for should usually not fall foul of Wikipedia house rules. --Grimne (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of laser articles

List of laser articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of laser articles" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article: Lasers are definitely notable, but this article seems to be an administrative article.Curb Chain (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Much of this material is only loosely related to lasers anyway, the more relevant topics can be found by other means more easily than here. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems to serve navigation/development purposes as per WP:LIST does it not? --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is a new article I just created, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to a couple of articles. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. If you think this article has loosely material relating to lasers than maybe I can delete the below semi laser related links to it. This laser list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a laser specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of infrared articles,List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In this case Categories are much more effective way of organising articles.21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of laser topics to help others find laser topics or a specific laser field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of lasers to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every laser topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this laser list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its a valuable laser list source to find other laser topics to it.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)— Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete (or permanently userfy if the creator wants to keep it for personal reference): This unencyclopedic list of articles does not belong in article space. Categories are the Wikipedia way of handling this kind of organization. —teb728 t c 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not. That is why it should be deleted on the basis that it is not notable. With your reasoning, which should have exact copies of articles for every category we have.Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning - does not meet valid deletion reason.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep We need navigation list articles like this where categories do not do the job as well. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Rename and revamp as Outline of lasers. The nominator is correct in that this is not an appropriate list article. In lieu of deletion, resorting this as an WP:OUTLINE would be a viable option. ThemFromSpace 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Iv'e deleted about 85 laser articles, most of them where long so that should cut down on its loading time, plus I deleted some [[]] bracket links. I found a few vital Laser articles, like SASER, Sound Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, which is kinda rare to find. A lot of these laser articles I found for this laser list will make them more notable along with creating articles for the laser red links articles. I thought about making it a outline but usually outline's need a short definition, plus theirs a huge laser word column where you don't have to read the laser part just the part after it like Laser broom, Laser bullet system and so forth just read the broom part much faster to scan. It could be called a index but list sounds more known. The laser category is not really a category right now, and if it was some people have no clue about it, plus both would be good to have. Teb this is kinda a encyclopedia it just does not have definition's next to it, even Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology does not have it right next to it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of plasma (physics) articles

List of plasma (physics) articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of plasma (physics) articles" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also totoo narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles")Curb Chain (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems to serve navigation/development purposes as per WP:LIST does it not? --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is also a new article I just created in November, and it is notable with 6000 views on its statistics chart. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This plasma list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a plasma specific field of interest. Plus having all of plasma equations and creations it will help understand on how to make future plasma machines, weapons like a plasma window force field. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of infrared articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Art carlson I don't see how this list confuses or steers anyone away from the more useful categories for this list has almost every plasma related article. Again categories cant be searched on line google like list or index, plus you cant really type in category plasma physics with out this (:) after category, more people would just type in list or index of something instead of category they should not be deleted, having extra is a bonus of allowing Wikipedia people to find what they want in a more diverse way. I found a rare article Spaser, surface plasmon amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. This spaser article has no link to any kind of plasma physics article. Thanks to making this plasma list I been able to find dozens of unknown plasma articles that open a whole new world for die hard plasma people to know about very plasma article on this list. If you type in spaser plasma on google this plasma list shows up 17th on google which the more you type relating to plasma words it shows list of plasma physics at the top.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How often are you planning to vote on this?

In software development, it is a good principle to do something "once and only once". It makes it easier for the developer to keep things up-to-date, error-free, complete, and understandable, and it makes it easier for the user to learn and remember how to do things. Some developers, however, hold to the opposite view, There's more than one way to do it. Wikipedia seems to lean toward the latter philosophy, so you and Burpelson may be right that Curb and I are arguing against Wikipedia policy in general as much as against keeping this particular page.

The usual way to enter a category for browsing would be to go to any related article and then click the category link at the top. Colon free!

If you are interested in spasers, you will type it into google and the top hit will be the Wikipedia article. Where's the problem? The reason Spaser is not linked to Plasma (physics) or in Category:Plasma physics is that it is a matter of opinion how closely the topics are really related. If you think they need to be associated, then you can easily make the wiki-link or add the category without worrying about your list.

I don't understand your point about google and categories. If I google on "plasma category" the top hit is Wikipedia's Category:Plasma physics.

Art Carlson (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying hard to understand why this article was not named "List of plasma articles". Even Index of radiation articles is broader thatthan the subject matter of one 'state-of-matter'.Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. In this case Categories are a much more effective way of organising articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of plasma topics to help others find plasma topics or a specific plasma field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of plasma articles to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every plasma topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this plasma list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. This plasma list has been out for 3 months and only one person wanted it deleted it has decent amount of views better than its plasma category. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its a valuable plasma list source to find other plasma related topics to it.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)— Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. I see no purpose that is not already served by Category:Plasma physics, or possibly by the search function. Red links for potential articles should be placed in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Plasma_physics. If a user doesn't understand the Category system, adding a parallel List system will only cause more confusion and steer him away from useful categories on other topics. It could well be that other List and Index articles should be deleted, but that is no argument for keeping this one. Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not, then, have exact copies of articles for every category we have?Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, why not? You are the one proposing that we shouldn't do that, so you are the one who needs to answer that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because we have a category system.Curb Chain (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you more than once in this discussion, the fact that we have a category sytem is no reason not to have parallel lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

...omitting the fact that if a need for a parallel list article is warranted because some deficiency of the category system.Curb Chain (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep We need list/navigation articles like this which do things that categories don't. This one a bit weaker keep than the others by this editor because the category comes a bit closer than the others. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not meet notability criteria. The "list" would indeed be better presented as a category. (Incidentally, with the absence of references, the "list" also fails verifiability, but that would be an indication for clean-up, not deletion.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Both can exist simultaneously but what is the point of that?Curb Chain (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reread the statement as it answers your question. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No it does not answer my question because if this was to be fact then the wikipedia would doubled with spam.

The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria. This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia. This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you should start an RFC on the guideline's talk page because your beef is with the guideline, now me. All I'm doing is stating what the rules say. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've run across several situations where a list of articles (which can include some context notes) would have been very useful in ways that categories don't fill the bill and disambig articles don't allow. And the guideline also supports this. That's why I advocate KEEP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather, you are misinterpreting the guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No... I'm not. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep, per Per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LIST. And the nom's rationale ("This article seems to be an administrative article") is too vague and appears an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cavarrone (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of infrared articles

List of infrared articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of infrared articles" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also too narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles" Curb Chain (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (although technically I should say delete). Wikipedia needs to create a place/legitimacy for this type of an article/list. It fills a unfilled need. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is also a new article I just created a few days ago, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to infrared article. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This infrared list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a infrared specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar. I can also fix it more to improve it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plasma (physics) articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of laser articles). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of infrared topics to help others find infrared topics. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of infrared to see also is not spamming plus I only linked it to infrared article. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this infrared list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:energy includes political and economic articles related to energy. Index of energy articleIndex of energy articles's theme is energy-per-the-physics-theory, so articles with a theoretic-scientific connection are listed.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its a valuable infrared list source to find other infrared related topics to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - A useful list. Theoretically, it would be better served by categorization as opposed to a list, but the people who own categorization will find some way to delete the category as not specific enough or "overcategorization". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If a categorization is trivial, then the same article would be trivial as well.Curb Chain (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and I didn't say categorization would be trivial, I said the people who WP:OWN the categorization wikiproject would get the category deleted because, although it would be very useful, there's surely some old discussion they had on a talkpage someplace that sayd they don't want it. Additionally, per Northamerica1000's point above, arguing that it is redundant to a category is not a valid argument for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No one owns the category "project", nor is it a wikiproject. Maybe this misconception is informing your opinion of Categories and Lists.Curb Chain (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria. This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia. This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Again categories cant be searched on the web and you need to add a : after category in order for it to show up on Wikipedia where list is much more of a common word to type in, having both categories and list gives Wikipedia users a more diverse way to find info. I still have more to add to this list.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Legality of cannabis by country. Anything useful can be merged from the article's history.  Sandstein  17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Legality of drugs

Legality of drugs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Legality of drugs" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Article is not what the title says; title is too broad/undefined. Article as it currently exists largely duplicates information in Legality of cannabis by country; encyclopaedia would be better served by a series of articles, one per drug, perhaps, which seems more intuitive a search. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge or improve. Nomination argues for improvement, not for why the article's information is bad a priori. So go improve it. Sai ¿?✍

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's all just about one drug, the Devil's Weed, hence redundant due an existing article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Title is too broad" is, in of itself, a non-argument. Law is vastly broader than this page, but no one proposes that it be deleted. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
• Unless it is expanded to include other drugs, this article should be merged into to Legality of cannabis by country, and redirected to that article, unless anyone can think of a better target. I think that it is a plausible search term. James500 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Improve or merge per above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per above. this article has broader scope than the cannabis article, but I think hard drugs are banned in most countries. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

History of South Asia

History of South Asia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "History of South Asia" – news · books · scholar · free images)

At the moment, this page is simply a massive See Also section, just listing various history articles. This isn't much of an article. If this page was an article, its contents would have to be almost identical to those of History of India, and although there is perhaps some room to say the two topics are not exactly identical, there is no denying that there is such a huge range of overlap that any article will suffer from massive duplication. CMD (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful outline page for navigation. Wouldn't have a problem with a rename to "Outline of South Asian history" if nom thinks that would clear up some confusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind if it was set up as an outline article, but even if it was, it would still be hard to justify it having a different title to the article it is outlining. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to History of India (note that this article is not about the country, but the subcontinent). There's even currently a major merge discussion ongoing to merge South Asia with Indian subcontinent. As the two are essentially the same, this would indeed be a duplication of History of India. Links and navigational aids can be incorporated into Template:History of South Asia, used on both pages. Nightw 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Lists of lists are useful navigation tools, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I articulated WP:CFORK. CMD (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This article may be renamed to Outline of South Asian history. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see what is currently in this article being part of an outline, which would make sense if we make it stretch up to modern times. However, the page History of South Asia shouldn't redirect to the Outline, but to the history article. CMD (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and improve History of South Asia is a different topic than History of X country articles. A lot of books are available titled "History of South Asia". Before the advent of present-day nation-states, there were interconnection between the different geographical regions. In many aspect, South Asia stands as a unique and unified whole compared to the other regions. For example, South Asian Stone Age is different from Stone Age in general. The article in its current form is unencyclopedic, but there is scope to improve and expand this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

History of India is not a History of a country article, but basically a history of (at least the vast majority of) the South Asian region. CMD (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Code Lyoko characters

List of Code Lyoko characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Code Lyoko characters" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article has no factual content whatsoever. Written entirely in-universe and has a citation to YouTube. The article is about a TV Show Code Lyoko, which has recently declined from its popular status. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as it's entirely in-universe and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Can be fixed through regular editing. Notable TV shows are normally entitled to a character list article like this. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. So the question is is this a notable TV Show? ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• A currently running cartoon with 5 seasons and a long run on Cartoon Network? Definitely notable. I still think the character list needs to be killed with fire, as cartoons are generally less likely to muster up enough out-of-universe information to warrant a character sheet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• I also want to say that "regular editing" is something this article lacks. Also, If you look at it, the only factual information is information about the voice actor. Nothing else. Regular editing cannot fix this article because there is little to no known factual information. The only way would be to completely rewrite it with more information on hand, which is far from "regular editing." Character lists like this from notable tv shows are definitely considerable. But not all are notable. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep All notable shows have a side article to list their characters, and another to list their episodes. We need to stop having things like this go to AFD all the time, and instead just pass a guideline to accept or deny them all once and for all. Dream Focus 07:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of software license violations

List of software license violations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of software license violations" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Fails or violates a number of policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, WP:Libel, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. --SF007 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

•    Keep    (see new vote below). Of cited policies the article fully passes WP:V, WP:Libel and WP:NOR. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are clearly not applicable at all. Referenced list of real concerns. SF007, I don't know the reasons of your crusade again information on violating ffmpeg's copyright, but this information clearly should stay. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think anyone's on a crusade. OTOH I think WP:BLP is clearly irrelevant. As everything is cited, so's WP:OR and WP:V. There may, however, be problems with self-published sources. Libel doesn't apply to true statements. --NYKevin @849, i.e. 19:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Using unreliable sources is a WP:V problem. WP:NOR isn't a completely unreasonable objection given the article's use of sources like this mailing list post. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't think these sources are unreliable though. They come from copyright holders and some of them have alleged violators' replies. That would be sufficient for DMCA takedown, but isn't for WP:RS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A DMCA takedown is absurdly easy to do. Meeting our sourcing policies is less so. --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If X is enough for Y and Y is enough for Z, then X is enough for Z. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are the alleged violators' responses authentic? Why should we believe they are? When we start asking those questions, we are in WP:OR land. –Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No, we are not, because there is no way to question that in the article, and other namespaces are out of the scope of WP:OR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. It appears that 100% of the references in this article are unusable as reliable sources for the facts they're citing – that the list entries violate the licenses of some other software. For example, consider this page on the BusyBox site. While that source would be OK for citing statements about BusyBox, such as "The BusyBox project maintained a list of projects which appeared to violate its license terms," it isn't OK for a statement like "Macsense HomePod appears to violate BusyBox's license." The article cites that page 17 times. If there are reliable, secondary sources which I missed, please point them out. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What kind of source you need for alleged copyright infringement? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think that page would be a fine source if the article said something like "BusyBox claims the following companies have violated their license:". But it's not okay to just say "The following companies...", nor is it okay to say nothing and stick them on a list like this, as it's equivalent to saying they did it. --NYKevin @868, i.e. 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • NYKevin, you said it better. Dmitrij, I agree with NYKevin that the source would be acceptable in an article which said, "BusyBox alleges such-and-such violates its license." To place them on a list like this would require the usual, a reliable, secondary source meeting WP:RS, with some consideration of the quality of source in order to sustain WP:NPOV. For example, if articles in CNET, Wired, WSJ reported that such-and-such software violates the BusyBox license, I wouldn't have a problem using those sources. – Pnm (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It is a good reason to keep article and improve it in place. Why "delete" then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The topic is important, but none of the content is usable. If there were a few entries supported by good sources, I'd trim it down to those and keep, but it has zero such sources, and wouldn't be much of a list if all its entries were deleted. I "lost" recently making a similar argument (Secure error messages in software systems) but this topic seems different, perhaps because it's impossible to maintain NPOV without sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:NPOV is absolutely irrelevant here, as there is no case for POV in suspected violations: either violation is suspected or it isn't. And there is no case for different issues regarding the important articles' deletion: in fact we judge the names here, not the content itself; literally, the vote "delete" is absolutely equal to "non-notable topic" statement and "keep" is "notable topic". There is just no room for "topic is notable, but delete it". That said, all of the ffmpeg bug entries are absolutely usable: they securely prove the fact that there is a claim about copyright violation. The violation itself is a matter of criminal investigation, not the AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
            • That's simply untrue -- There are lots of reasons to delete something aside from notability. --NYKevin @307, i.e. 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • But you might notice that all reasons for deletion of articles on the list boil down to WP:GNG: the ability to verify information with reliable sources. So my statement was simply true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Suspected violations are from the POV of the accuser. – Pnm (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say so. WP:NPOV address the cases with several viable approaches (and fringe theories as the exception). Suspected violation is a completely different matter: the statements' validity depends on fact, not on its interpretation. Thus WP:NPOV is just the wrong instrument here, as it is specifically tailored to deal with different type of cases. And even if not so, by listing an argument as "suspected violation" we give equal weight to both sides of conflict, so neutrality is properly maintained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Describing the accused's action as suspected makes the article accurate, not balanced. We are representing the accuser's POV, but have no reasonable way to represent the accused's without running afoul of WP:NOR. True statements can still be biased; that's the point of WP:UNDUE. – Pnm (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we would report X's position if we were saying "Y violates X's copyright". We would report Y's position if we were saying "Y doesn't violate X's copyright" or nothing at all. The only way to keep the thing balanced is to report that "X suspects violation of its copyright by Y". That is a difference between informing and taking sides. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can't even open the ffmpeg sources like this one. Do they actually load for you? – Pnm (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, as it is an old location. The new one is [12], and substituting "mplayerhq.hu/roundup/ffmpeg" with "libav.org" works for each of them IIRC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, WP:V does not "boil down to" WP:GNG, which isn't met in this case anyway (none of the sources are independent). Verifiability means the statements can be verified; failing it means there aren't enough verified facts for an article. The GNG means the topic itself is noteworthy, which doesn't necessarily mean we can verify anything relating to it. --NYKevin @880, i.e. 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial statement, actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where in my statement did I say that this meets WP:V? I certainly don't remember saying that, but it's in your initial statement. --NYKevin @316, i.e. 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the lines to show the start and the end of the alternative thread. Where are those LiquidThreads... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I change my vote to snow keep per outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 31#Secure error messages in software systems (closed). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Arbitrary, incoherent. I don't see what could come out of this. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lesser Known British Comic Strips

Lesser Known British Comic Strips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lesser Known British Comic Strips" – news · books · scholar · free images)

This article appears to embody the very antithesis of WP's notability requirements in that it actively seeks to list comic strips that are lesser known. This is besides the fact that it is a list and should be named as such. Rubiscous (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and move to List of British comic strips. At least one of those in the list is notable Tim, Toots & Teeny Spotlight on Sally gets a few hits also[13] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete inherently OR. If you're going to make a list of British comic strips, start with the ones that already have articles, not this mass of non-notable examples. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be a collection of fact without the qualification of how important they are. The strip cartoons in this entry, although relatively lesser known today, were highly popular in their time and individually lasted for decades. Rather than have a group of stubs it is, in my opinion, better to collect them in a single article. The importance factor will be different for different individuals. How can any person or group take the right for deletion of an item that was highly accepted in its time. This becomes sencorship. The entry could, however, be combined with another relavant entry, but never deleted!

DonJay (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The point is that "lesser known" is highly subjective. What constitutes "lesser known"? There's no way you can objectively define that term, putting it in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the cartoons in this list were highly popular and notable in their time, then considering that notability is not temporary it is inappropriate to describe them collectively as 'lesser known'. The notability in its own right of each individual strip in the list is not in dispute right here and now, just whether the article should exist as a whole. You are correct about things being different for different individuals - the degree of how 'known' a comic strip was is completely arbitrary. Unless a notable list of 'lesser known british comic strips' exists off-project in a reliable source, or we have reliable sources for each individual strip describing each one as 'lesser known' then putting together a list in this manner is original research. To cut down on stubs by collecting together a list is fine, the above suggestion by Darkness Shines of List of British comic strips, or by publication for example List of Daily Mail comic strips would be more acceptable alternatives because the criteria for inclusion in such lists would not be subjective. Note that such lists would have to include all the more notable strips that fit the criteria which have their own articles, and that these strips should be given appropriate prominence, thus the current article would make a poor starting point compared with simply starting another list from scratch. Rubiscous (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is for deletion, not modification. Consequently it should be rejected. The original entry was not a true list, but rather a collection of stubs, which it was hoped could be enlarged. A better title might have been "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century". It was my hope that, when each item had been enlarged, that a separate entry could be made, By collecting the stubs together it would be more obvious that additions to them was needed. There has been several edits of this nature. My objection has not been because of change, but rather of deletion due to the use of "Lesser Known" in the title. DonJay (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any reason as to why "British Strip Cartoons of the Early 20th Century" would not also be completely arbitrary? Was there a notable change in the nature of British comic strips circa 1950? Whilst Wikipedia is a work in progress, each article should stand on its own merits, not by what other articles it might encourage to spawn. Your intentions are noble but such project-work is best confined to the project-space. Consider getting involved with WP:WikiProject_Comics, in particular WP:WikiProject Comics/British comics work group. Rubiscous (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "Lesser known" anything is problematic. If something is both notable and verifiable enough for a general-interest encyclopedia, in would generally not be "lesser-known" by definition. Looking at the article, I'd say neither of the first two entries are "lesser known": the first ran for 23 years and the second (apparently) almost 30. A better approach to the same material might be a (non-list) article on 20th century British newspaper comics or similar, but since fixing it would require a total rewrite up to and including the title, my vote is to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority of items in an encyclopedia are "lesser known" (in fact, unknown) to an individual. That is why they are there, to become "better known". Deletion is to destroy this possibility of becoming known. Unless the information is preserved within the encyclopedia, the information is likely to be lost. Consequently a deletion should not occur unless the content is elsewhere.

One reason that a collection of stub articles is attractive, is that a peson with knowledge on a subject can easily see where information is sparse, and can possibly add to it. This cannot be done with descrete entries, as it would be necessary to refer to a list and examine each independantly. DonJay (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - the material in this article is interesting, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, but I agree that as it is it fails WP:OR (containing no sources) and WP:IINFO. 'Lesser known British comic strips' is simply never going to work as a topic of an article. However, a List of British comic strips, or an article on the History of British comic strips, would be acceptable, providing that they were properly sourced.

Robofish (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• The reasons given by Robofishtalk are not relevant . Sources (WP-OR) are given within the text as being the newspapers. These are available in many public libraries. WP-INFO does not apply as the entries are not indiscriminate, by any of the categories given in WP-INFO. In fact they are part of a set. Also the statement "never going to work as a topic of an article" can not be proven, and is unlikely to be true.

The opening sentence of WP-INFO is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia" . The definition of Encyclopedia (OXFORD) is "a work containing general information on all branches of knowledge". Rejection of this 'request for deletion' should be made. DonJay (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and reanem, per DarknessShines. This is a good example of just where a list article can be useful. We don't have to show formal WP:Notability for each and every entry here, and it can defuse much of the trouble over just such an argument. Besides which, several of these are almost certainly notable anyway: Varoomshka was the infamous "Tits in the Grauniad" strip, Lord God Almighty was an early work by Steve Bell and both Sporting Sam and (the utterly ghastly) The Larks are noteworthy on the basis of their long-running.

If anyone is itching to delete British comic strips, then I suggest starting at the mess that is Category:Beano strips, where any number of unreferenced one-para and entirely trivial articles refuse to die, despite regular attempts. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep That something is lesser known does not make it unimportant, or even non-notable. WP should have appropriate coverage for subjects depending on their importance and the extent of sourcing available, and in many cases this will be less than a full article, if if the notability guidelines permit an article to be written, they do not require that there should be a separate article in all cases--we have the flexibility to do what is suitable to the specific topics. And if these are regarded as non-notable, the guidelines are all very specific that notable does not apply to the content within an article--logically , how could it, because then every event in a person;s life would need to be separately notable if it were to be mentioned at all. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I've added two more sources to the article. It's a list article with a focused, discriminate criterion for its entries. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but possible merge. Since consensus is in favor of keeping this content somewhere, discussion of a merge or redirect can and should continue at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Process improvement

Process improvement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Process improvement" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Original research and trivial definition of a non-notable neologism that's too vague to mean ... well ... anything:

• In organizational development (OD), process improvement is a series of actions taken by a process owner to identify, analyze and improve existing business processes within an organization to meet new goals and objectives.[citation needed] These actions often follow a specific methodology or strategy to create successful results/
• Process improvement is also a method to introduce process changes to improve quality, reduce costs, or accelerate schedules.

Mostly a See Also list to a large number of articles that themselves need to be looked at. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with Business Process Improvement [14] The article is notable.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I could easily live with a redirect. Is there anything to merge? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• More then likely you are correct but I'll leave that to the author(s) to decide. If the author(s) do see this deletion activity perhaps the might help with "Business Process Improvement". Just a suggestion.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• merge as suggested above. We can decide that, though someone does have to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Entire books are written about process improvement as you can readily see from the search link above. For example, see Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness. Wikipedia and AFD is itself a process in much need of improvement and work upon this notable topic might help this along. Deleting the topic instead would be an absurd act of denial. Warden (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Warden (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This topic has been covered in reliable tertiary sources. Here's two I added to the article:

• Cook, Sarah (1996). "Process improvement: a handbook for managers". Gower Publishing Ltd, et al.. http://books.google.com/books?id=9ldXrWV7RT0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Process+improvement%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6BktT_n9IKSXiALKkJGgCg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Process%20improvement%22&f=false. Retrieved February 04, 2012.  ISBN 0-566-07633-0
• Kock, Nereu F. (et al.) (1994). The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper). The Learning Organization. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=882523&show=abstract. 

 — Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to sort through the 26,700 Google news archive search results, and the 103,000 Google book search results. I eliminate the word "business", "managers", "office", and others from the results, but I still keep getting those which are related to business. If it the same thing is business process improvement, then merge makes sense. Dream Focus 11:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge As suggested. Sources provided above emphasize this is a business process. "Process improvement: enhancing your organization's effectiveness" and "Process improvement: a handbook for managers" and "The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper)". These sources are a perfect example of why this should be merged into Business process improvement. We don't need two articles on the same exact subject. This isn't a loss of content, it's consolidation of the same topic.--v/r - TP 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Process improvement is not confined to businesses. For example, as a member of USAF, you should be familiar with the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century program. Warden (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: This article is 9 years old, created in 2003 when the project had maybe 150,000 articles. People weren't making pages for every Captain & Tennille single or what have you back then. Admittedly, "process improvement" is a very generic term and isn't a flashy one like Taylorism, and the article could use improvement, but the term is notable. Books like this one [15] confirm that. I know this stuff it utterly boring, but its important to business management research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re suggestion of merger to Business process improvement, I am not sure. That article claims it derives from a 1991 book, and I would be surprised if process management research in a broad sense doesn't predate that significantly, things like the Hawthorne effect derive from research done in the 1920s.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem to support a merge. Do you have sources that support a stand alone article?--v/r - TP 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I've had the misfortune to do studies in this area so I know this isn't a "non-notable neologism" as the nominator claims. Whether I want to actually do this work is another thing entirely, but there's a reason we don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizational Behavior around here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me some examples? The examples above seem to support that this term is a business term. I'd like to see what you have so I can determine whether or not your sources support this claim for myself.--v/r - TP 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. Digging up these old textbooks would be a pain if I still have them, but yes, the term is a business or management term. But the Business process improvement seems to be some specialized version based on a 1991 book. Perhaps a merge and rewrite is what's really needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the other article needs to be renamed too.--v/r - TP 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Startling by Each Step episodes

List of Startling by Each Step episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of Startling by Each Step episodes" – news · books · scholar · free images)

I've added the proposed delete template on List of Startling by Each Step episodes because of the following concerns: "Believed to be unnecessary due to each episode's summary lack relevants, listed under Singapore's airdates instead of its original from Mainland China, incomplete, spoilers, lacking activities, sloppiness, and does not cite any reference. Unless improvements are made, I am standing the proposal of deletion of the article. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

'Merge and redirect. Concerns about air-dates is not a reason to delete...easy enough to change to those of country of origin (or add if the Singapore broadcasts are somehow important too). Concerns about sloppiness is never a reason to do delete...fix it or tag it. WP:SPOILER is never a reason to do anything. Episode-lists are common for many series, and putting them in a separate article is a standard way to avoid cluttering up a long article about the series itself. Which leaves us with general notability (WP:UNDUE, fancruft, or excessive/unencyclopediac detail...WP is not TV Guide) and lack of citations. The series article (Startling by Each Step) seems to have excessive plot-summary and other details (cf. WP:PLOT, I've tagged that article accordingly)--it's a series based on a book, so I assume the substantial plot is the book's topic--so I'd support redirecting back to the parent and putting a brief summary of how the series follows the plot of the book (again, don't duplicate book details). DMacks (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Shotgun nomination manages to hit one actual deletion reason amongst the several listed. As is, the nominator admits that it aired in two national television networks, which means that the lack of sourcing should be easily remedyable. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• This list is practically like written by a five year old, even though I know it is written by a Chinese audieance of the show who lacked the profieciency of English grammar, writing, and spelling.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for excessively detailed plots of television series. The plot section of the main article needs to be trimmed down as well. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Public restrooms in Bratislava

Public restrooms in Bratislava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Public restrooms in Bratislava" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Not nearly a notable article. Strangely sourced, but entirely unencyclopedic. And Wikipedia is not a travel guide. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll clarify a bit more per Unscintillating's comment. The article is poorly sourced, and I don't think it means WP:GNG. Of the three sources listed, none are used to back up the items on the list. If one considers it a list article, it doesn't meet WP:SAL, in that none of the items in the list are notable in their own right.. largely because they're bathrooms. But it's really just a wholly unsuitable topic for Wikipedia. We don't have articles on public restrooms in various locations because we're not a travel guide. The initial commit on the article had this edit comment: "For the benefit of the thousands of visitors to Braitslava for the 2011 IIHF World Championships and for the enlightment of future generations :)". It was created as a guide for people and doesn't belong in mainspace. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that several reliable sources have been added to the article as of this post. The article is no longer "strangely sourced", as stated in the nomination, and it is no longer "poorly sourced" as stated by the nominator in their subsequent comment below the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  After skimming this article, I don't see why the nominator wants this article listed at AfD; fact is, the nomination does not make a complete argument for deletion, nor does the word "delete" in bold using an argument listed at WP:ATA constitute an adequate !vote.  So the best thing would be to get this speedy kept WP:SK#1 with WP:NPASR within 24 hours of nomination, so that the nominator can decide if he/she is willing to do some additional work to prepare the rest of the community for a deletion discussion.  Given that parts of the lede appear to be WP:OR, there could be content problems, but to separate this possibility from good material it would help to show that the Hungarian sources are not adequate.  Beyond that, it helps if an AfD nomination explains why the content is so objectionable that it cannot be merged.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: There, I've added to my nomination. But really, you mentioned merging - what would you possibly merge this into? Public restrooms in Slovakia? We don't have articles on public restrooms. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Technically "unencyclopedic content" is listed at WP:ATA...but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to catch your drift, but the drift seems to be censorship, are sewage treatment plants also topics that we avoid?  Where I have lived, even visits to Mexico, the idea of a public bathroom with a bathroom attendant to take payments is totally unheard of.  To me I find this view into the infrastructure of a city in a former Soviet satellite to be fresh and practical.  As for merge, there is Bratislava.  But if most of the article is WP:OR, we have a content problem.  Likewise if most of the content is unsourced.  That still leaves those pictures, there is a lot of material here to explain why it should be deleted, when right now we have an interesting functional article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Brutalhovno, who created the article, also took a majority of the pictures. But here, let me ask you: since you think public restrooms should be included in the Bratislava article, why don't we have a "Public facilities" section in all articles about major cities? Some trivia factoid about attendants is trivia and doesn't justify an entire article. The entire article is OR, i.e. content generated by Brutalhovno based on his own research, which is where all the pictures came from as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • You said, "The entire article is OR, i.e. content generated by Brutalhovno based on his own research".  What evidence do you have to support that statement?  Also, I did not say that "public facilities should be included in the Brataslava article", nor do I know that we discuss sewers in city articles, but I found without an real effort London sewerage system, 1929 Ottawa sewer explosion and Louisville sewer explosions.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'
          • This article is not even remotely the same as the sewerage systems ones. This is a list of exact locations of public toilets and the times they are open. As to evidence to support the OR thing: until I nominated the article for AFD, Brutal was the only editor on the page. He took nearly all the pictures himself. He cites no sources for any of the locations or times that the public restrooms are open. Based on this, it seems likely that he went around Bratislava, noted where the public toilets are, and took pictures of them - the very definition of OR.

And even if he did find reliable sources for them, it still shouldn't be included. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. A list of the public restrooms in Bratislava, no matter what shape or form it's in, is not worthy of inclusion here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Flush down the toilet. Public facilities would have to be magnificently out of the ordinary in a particular location to merit an article. Something could be made of the Lack of toilets in the Palace of Versailles, but Bratislava? Meh. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTTRAVEL for the actual list and WP:N for the rest. I couldn't see merging any of it into the main article. The citation issue is not a reason for deletion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete we are not a travel guide and it is poorley constructed. Peter.C • talk • contribs 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Fellow Wikipedians, let me state first that currently the article does indeed read a little like a travel guide and there are other issues, which can be fixed. However, there are also the following points to consider:
  

1) I firmly believe that the subject matter merits its own wikipedia article, because public toilets are a striking feature of the wider city center of the capital of Slovakia and like other public structures in the city they should be covered on Wikipedia in some shape or form. I also disagree with the logic, that the absence of a "Public restrooms in New York" article merits deleting this article. Not only there would not be millions of articles on Wikipedia if everyone thought so, it is also completely reversible (that means since there is this article, it could be implied that a "Public restrooms in New York" article should be created).

2) The article is not a stub, a lot of work was put into it mostly by a single person. It is very discouraging for an editor seeing his work destroyed, especially when it was OK to let him publicly work on the article for almost a year. Editors from obscure countries should be nurtured, even the ones like me.

3) The argument for deletion is still poorly constructed (please take no offense). In a nutshell: WP:NOTTRAVEL is an easily surmountable problem, "unencycopedic" is too vague and I have a huge problem assigning it to public structures in capital cities of the world and "strangly sourced" is both an opinion and an easily fixable issue. Also, I do not consider uploading your own images as WP:OR, I always thought of it as a way of improving Wikipedia. As for WP:N, that is the only real issue. For me, this is part of the basic city infrastructure and it is notable enough.Brutalhovno (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep separately. The content of our article is verifiable by multiple reliable sources, even the first page of the G-search result for verejné záchody v bratislave (Public restrooms in Bratislava) provides good sources about this topic [16], [17], [18], [19]. From what I can read in Slovak, I can confirm that the content of our article is not OR and corresponds well with the sources listed in the article or here. Of course, the article needs more inline citations, but the topic is in my opinion notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not just a question of verifiability - it's about whether the topic as a whole, i.e. public restrooms in Bratislava, is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well I guess that if a topic is being discussed widely in the national media in a long time span, then it probably is notable. We maintain hundreds of articles on video game characters ... do we really want to delete verifiable, interesting and useful information about the life in the public places of a big European city? I'm sorry but I disagree. There is sufficient coverage to compile a good article about this issue. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources:

• "Public Toilets Should be Improved". Petit Press. August 31, 2006. http://bratislava.sme.sk/c/3943397/verejne-zachody-sa-maju-zlepsit.html. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• "Cloaca". Petit Press. July 11, 2008. http://bratislava.sme.sk/c/3970630/kloaka.html. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• Krafka, Jaro (July 5, 2011). "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22". Markiza TV. http://tvnoviny.sk/sekcia/spravy/regiony/verejne-wc-su-poriadne-drahe-jedna-navsteva-vyjde-mesto-aj-22.html. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• "Public toilets in the city are still dwindling, government knows that a shortage". Bratislava newspaper. August 31, 2006. http://www.bratislavskenoviny.sk/najnovsie-spravy-z-bratislavy/byvanie-sluzby/verejne-toalety-v-meste-stale-ubudaju-samosprava-nevie-ze-ich-je-nedostatok.html?page_id=3979. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• "The deficit in public toilets: the sound Bratislava nas.ali and resolve it your way!". Ringier Axel Springer. August 31, 2006. http://vas.cas.sk/clanok/4012/deficit-verejnych-wc-bratislavcania-sa-zdravo-nas-ali-a-vyriesili-to-po-svojom.html. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• "Municipality to build new public toilets". City of Bratislava. July 4, 2008. http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo/dokumenty2.asp?id_org=700000&id=11018044. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 
• "Poverty and Public Toilets Gloss". Bratislava Courier. 2008. http://www.bratislavskykurier.sk/vismo/dokumenty2.asp?id_org=600618&id=1369. Retrieved January 30, 2012.  [PDF from Old Town Courier Volume II. No. 7 (2008).]

 — Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Again, per WP:V: "While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion." Just because you can source something doesn't mean that it necessarily gets in. Those sources could be used for a section called Public utilities on the Bratislava article because they're about the sewage system, but they don't validate having an article that specifically lists the location of each public toilet in Bratislava. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sewage system?  I'm just sitting here looking at the titles of the articles, but how do you get "sewage system" out of an article titled, "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22"?  That looks to me like an article focusing on public policy for "public restrooms in Bratislava".  Now that the WP:GNG issue it has been shown that reliable sources exist, there is still the WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL issues to get past.  One of the WP:NOTTRAVEL concerns is to avoid pricing, and I've already removed the pricing from the article.  The line you have quoted from WP:V has to do with prominence and WP:DUE, not WP:N notability.  Yes, a list with addresses is a WP:NOTTRAVEL issue, but since not all of the locations have pictures, it seems just a matter of a few edits to remove locations that lack sufficient prominence for inclusion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor clarification: The translation of the title "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22" is incorrect and misleading. The report by TV Markíza says that one visit of a public toilet costs the city (not the visitor) 22 € (Verejné WC sú poriadne drahé, jedna návšteva vyjde mesto aj na 22 €). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Objection: As WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." Therefore, to claim 'keep' it is not enough to provide sources (which can only demonstate WP:N), but it is also necessary to address WP:NOTGUIDE concerns raised by others (including nom). Ipsign (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• The same kind of sources presented above can be found for very many places - try, for example, this search. Presented in isolation the list above misleadingly suggests adequate coverage, but the bigger picture is that the coverage is entirely run of the mill. Whilst there may be a notable sub-topic of Public toilets to cover here, there is nothing to indicate notability of Bratislava in particular. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Richard. Removing the unsourced travel guide list we are left with a short history section that might be notable enough to get a mention in the Bratislava article at a pinch, but is not enough for it's own article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with an article on Bratislava sanitation or public facilities that would include other similar content.--Avala (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you provide an example of an article on public facilities that would take this sort of list? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO, this is not so much a list as it is an article that includes a list.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep  Northamerica1000 has shown that the topic passes WP:GNG.  I have added material, inline citations, [citation needed], and [original research?] tags to the article.  I have removed some WP:NOTTRAVEL content including prices.  I have removed some material that appears to have been WP:OR.  I have not removed any of the locations in the list, but the mere presence of content that could theoretically be used by tourists does not mean that the article as a whole qualifies for a WP:NOTTRAVEL deletion.  According to a source, the tourist industry is not happy about the toilet situation.  IMO, this is a fresh and practical article about a real-world topic, with pictures of the turf of the "legendary" hajzelbaba.  The first edit has an edit comment,"For the benefit of the thousands of visitors to Braitslava for the 2011 IIHF World Championships and for the enlightment of future generations".  We are now in the phase of this article being enlightenment for future generations.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOTGUIDE (which overrides all WP:N considerations according to WP:N itself: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.". Ipsign (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

With a goal of eliminating any possible source for the position that WP:NOT is applicable for this article, I have elided nine of the entries on the list.  I have also recharacterized the list as a partial list.  Do you agree that WP:NOT is not now applicable?  If not, specifically what is still objectionable?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment As I see it, it is still in direct violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, which explicitly says:"An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead.". Ipsign (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see how on earth the encyclopedia is improved by an article about one city's public toilets; WP:ROUTINE coverage does not the WP:GNG meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ROUTINE is quite irrelevant as that is talking about events. Warden (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Relisting after the article has been substantially edited during the AfD.  Sandstein  08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think the GNG and NOTTRAVEL will be met if the following sentence in the article is indeed true: "Under communism, the tradition of public toilets formed, which influences the city to this day." The single source addressing this issue does, in my opinion, not suffice. If public toilets indeed influence the culture or other elements of Bratislava than, indeed, we can imagine a reader wanting to read the article. As of yet, I don't, though. Maybe the author could expand on why the toilets are indeed influental? Jhschreurs (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The article is quite well-written, well-sourced and fascinating. Editors who do not care for the topic have no right to delete it on such grounds - see our policy. I would just observe that the title should use British English rather than American, as Bratislava is in the EU, not the USA. Warden (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Well-written" and "fascinating" are not reasons to keep an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It is our editing policy to preserve such content. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The assertion that BrEng should be used is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines or policy; see especially WP:ENGVAR. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It is our policy to use British English for topics set in Europe because British English is an official language of the EU and American English isn't. Also, "restroom" is an inaccurate euphemism and so is improper. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • How about Public WC in Bratislava?.  As I look at the pictures I have found two that say "WC", so it should work to span both dialects and be literally relevant for Bratislava.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • As a British English speaker I would like to find a way to agree with you, but I believe you are mistaken. WP:TIES says that articles about the institutions of the European Union should be written in BrEng; it doesn't even extend that to the member states, let alone articles about subjects that just happen to be within the member states. On the other hand, WP:RETAIN, below that, very explicitly says that 'an article should not be ... renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another'. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • It is not a valid use; it is a euphemism. Warden (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
            • It is an acceptable alternative according to Public toilet. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no convincing argument that the subject is in any way notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Notability is not a matter of argument; it's a matter of sources. The article has perfectly good sources which testify to there being some interest in the question of whether Bratislava has adequate provision of such facilities. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• What sources are you looking at? The entire Partial list of public toilets in Bratislava section is unsourced. If you're talking about the content at the top, that could maybe be merged into Bratislava, though I don't know where. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• The sources are no different from those posing the same question about very many other cities; the coverage is entirely run of the mill and therefore not notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MILL is not a policy; it is just a personal prejudice. And if the issue is common to many cities then the content might form part of a more general article. See Inclusive urban design: public toilets which "highlights the role of urban design in reversing the trend of inadequate toilet provision". Warden (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• We have inclusion thresholds for good reason; equating them with censorship is a bit of a stretch. You are indeed right that the search results I cited may indicate a notable sub-topic of Public toilet but our task here is not to debate that, but whether there is anything exceptional, and therefore notable, about the ones specifically in Bratislava. There is not; the issues are common-place, the subject is mundane and run-of-the-mill; it is not notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) provided the sources above. Haus^Talk 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Yes, public toilets exist. Yes, public toilets in state/town/city/region exist. I'm sure there are travel guides, directories and the occasional "state of public restrooms" news piece that make note of such locations. However, we're neither a travel guide not directory, which is all this article is. I really hope that someday the ARS will stop embarrassing the project with drivel like this. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per all the travel guide and directory arguments made above by numerous people. I'm not sure why the newspapers over there go on at such length about the toilets, but that they do so doesn't make the subject notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question If this is deleted, is there a chance that it could be userfied as its sister article was? It really is quite humorous. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. North Amer. has done a great job of showing the sources prove this is notable generally. What makes the subject notable is that the WCs in this particular city are so much worse than other cities in the 1st/2nd world. We have lots of weird stuff on Wikipedia - and it's a bad argument to claim it should be deleted merely because it's weird. Hell, we have lots of weird stuff here. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Does this really have to be explained? Or is this like the train stations in Britain thing? In that case, quick!, we most definitely need an article for Public restrooms in Wyandach, New York.VolunteerMarek 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Statues in Dublin and Railway stations in the Netherlands, don't be snobs just because they are public toilets. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Objection - WP:OTHERSTUFF is an inherently invalid argument. Ipsign (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen on railway station directory articles either, and for the same reasons. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ Being hyper-literary should be a blockable offense. Yet, I will try to accommodate your lack of trying to hear my point by changing my statement to this: Every reason possible for keeping Statues in Dublin and Railway stations in the Netherlands are applicable here as well. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly WP:OTHERSTUFF and therefore is not a valid argument. It may happen that those 2 articles don't belong to Wikipedia either, but now we're discussing Public restrooms in Bratislava; as for 2 other articles - feel free to start separate AfDs on them. Ipsign (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". I'm guessing you assumed the content? My argument stands as valid as the only difference between the two articles and this one is the subject is crass. Back to the actual argument rather then this tiff, List of bus routes in Queens and Parks in Dubuque, Iowa are again quite similar to this article, and like this article they have information someone may one day seek. There are references on the subject, then as a reference work, wikipedia should contain information on the subject. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE, unfortunately, differs from the one widely accepted in Wikipedia community. Ipsign (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ Y U NO THINK? 99.235.194.16 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ipsign, I don't agree that being often misrepresented means that the misrepresentation is widely accepted.  The essay speaks for itself on what it says.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I myself am happy to be a snob about it. Public bathrooms is where I draw the line is way over where I draw the line. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: just because Unscintillating and Northamerica found some references on the 'net doesn't mean we have to have an article. Even if this passes NOTE, it fails both NOTDIRECTORY and COMMONSENSE Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey''

List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey'' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of films featured in A Story of Film: An Odyssey" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Main article is a redlink, PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see much use in a list of films featured in a single documentary series if the documentary itself doesn't merit an article. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It's indeed odd that this megalist has been created without a companion article about the documentary itself, but in fact Mark Cousins' The Story of Film is an important and massive series that unquestionably deserves its own article: The Telegraph headlined it as "cinematic event of the year"[20], an Irish Times writer called it a "landmark" (albeit a "bizarrely underpromoted" one)[21], etc.[22][23] Whether a complete list of all the film clips in that documentary is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage, I'm not so sure.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep As the creator, I should have created the article on the Story of Film at the same time. As the series will Yes this list merits to be preserved until someone writes the article on the Story of cinema, an odyssey. Excuse me if it does not belong in Wikipedia however. This Story of cinema is such a great great teaching about cinema and the list is very useful to those who wish to learn more by watching again or for the first time the movies mentioned in the Story of Film please please do not delete I hve no time to write more now. Maria Elvira Pousa become recognized over time, this list shall merit its keep. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Yes, it's an essay, but the argument is laid out quite well. As for keeping or deleting this list, I'm still undecided. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete since the parent doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if the article about the parent series existed, that would not necessarily justify having a separate article with the list of films featured therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Updated comment. Since no one else took up the challenge, I've started an article for The Story of Film: An Odyssey. Described by multiple reviewers as a landmark, it clearly deserves an article. I'm still not convinced that the long list at issue here, itemizing every film discussed in the 15 hours of the series, is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage. On the other hand, maybe the shorter list of episode titles should be included. So maybe we should merge some limited parts of List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey'' into the new article The Story of Film: An Odyssey?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012‎ (UTC)
• merge the entire list into the new article. As it's a finite list, it could be handled better there, in two columns. If the program is a landmark, the list of films it covers is a good checklist of importance for the films--it's like the list of films preserved by the LoC. I note some of the films included do not yet have Wikipedia articles. This list gives sufficient warrant for making those articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)