Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:32, 11 June 2024

WP:DSLIST

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:

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. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

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The result was WP:SNOW keep/withdrawn by nominator. With due respect to the concern raised by Dream Focus, WP:SNOW is an appeal to use common sense and not draw out the process where there is no reasonable possibility of any other outcome, in this case considerably strengthened by the nominator's statement of withdrawal. Consensus here is clear, sufficiently overwhelming, and definitive. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping." Can they? Not for direct-to-video stuff certainly. The current list puts Stargate in the same series as the couple direct-to-video films based on the TV series. Those aren't really a series. Who decides? "There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions." I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the edge cases are here, and the thing is, requiring editors to hash them out is asking them to engage in OR, which was the basis of my delete !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so what? None of that is relevant to my objection. The topic of "list of film series by how many are grouped together in a wikipedia article" is pretty obviously not a valid list topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size isn't the issue, and it's disingenuous of you to set up such a straw man to argue against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. Moving forward, I think the only reasonable list you could have in this place (as alluded to for the MCU by Erik above) is simply an index to WP articles on film series/franchises, without any attempt to decide what gets included exactly. No editor OR is needed. There's no need to apply different standards to different types of series/franchises (see the godforsaken Stargate example above, just one of many like this). You simply get a list of overarching articles, which should discuss any case-specific nuances in prose, and can list related entries without really having to make any sort of decision about if it's truly part of a "series" or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, you are against having any list of film series on Wikipedia based on the fact some series, like Stargate, are not clear-cut? None of what you said above makes it sound like you are open to alphabetical or chronological sorting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen irredeemably synthetic listcruft in my day, and this isn't it. The question of which films to count together in a series is unambiguous and source-able in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's obvious up until reliable sources contest it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this was an AfD made in haste without taking into consideration its use as an organizational list. Oopsies. Would someone be able to close as withdrawn by nominator? jellyfish ✉ 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the IP address who still argues for deletion. So I think the rules state it must remain open for the full 7 days, even though its obviously a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. The issue with notability has not been adequately addressed, leaving in place a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Rename List of film festivals in Kosovo and remove really non-notable events and add other festivals held in Kosovo. As for the fact that none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city...hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about. Not opposed to a plain keep (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/kosovo/articles/the-5-best-festivals-in-kosovo ; https://prishtinainsight.com/kosovo-film-festivals-to-go-ahead-despite-covid-19/ ; https://www.google.com/search?q=Film+festivals+in+Pristina+-wikipedia&sca_esv=ee8b71f1efd28755&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=sRBoZt6IM-Dbi-gP5I-D-Aw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiepfbFltOGAxXg7QIHHeTHAM8Q8tMDegQIBBAE&biw=871&bih=496&dpr=2 etc.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, unless it's just a rewording of your rationale, in which case, yeah, sure, I heard you the first time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You "heard me the first time", and yet argued "keep because the page is about what the page is about" while completely ignoring the important point that pages aren't supposed to be about that? Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just re-read my comment carefully and don't misquote me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed some extremely promotional wording from the lead of the article, which does not bode well for COI/UPE. Add to that the contributions of its creator, which solely consist of creating this page. I think I lean delete, but I would also support moving this to List of film festivals in Kosovo. Toadspike [Talk] 08:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one entry is notable (i.e.: has its own article). If we remove all others, we are left with a list containing one item, which has no reason to exist. Hence my !vote for deletion. Broc (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Henan 1938. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Honan 1938

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Identical subject and content to Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Henan 1938, but with the Wade-Giles romanization of Henan ("Honan"). Can be safely turned into a redirect. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Japan. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This is baffling. The same editor, User:Asiaticus, created the "Honan" version on 15 February 2007, and then created the "Henan" version on 2 April 2008? Did they forget they'd made one already and simply create a new version based on the same sources? There are slight discrepancies, but since the Henan version has better sourcing I favor keeping that one. Toadspike [Talk] 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since this seems to be completely identical barring the romanization spelling Claire 26 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Back in 2008, the search function did not work as well as it does now, and many duplicate articles were created. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this article should be kept. Support redirect. Dympies (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, identical topic and mostly content. Fulmard (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to Rashmika Mandanna. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rashmika Mandanna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article sets a bad precendent. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani. Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. No need to delete this article, only merge it back to Rashmika Mandanna. The number of awards and nominations seem dubious here [1], might just be fan work. DareshMohan (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Too soon and too short. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Awards, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeinto Rashmika Mandanna: no need for a separate article. PamD 10:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rashmika_Mandanna#Awards_and_nominations. This do not have to be separate page. RangersRus (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Too soon and not much content for a separate page yet. Yupsguts (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Per Kailash29792. Charliehdb (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeinto Rashmika Mandanna.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not so big as of yet. Azuredivay (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in cryptography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: I see dozens of the entries in these lists with standalone Wikipedia articles. That's more than enough and is a clear criterion. See List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, and List of important publications in economics for example. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry! If you meant cryptography specifically, then yes there are too few. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like pretty much all of these date from the really early days of Wikipedia, well before the project had clearly defined guidance for list criteria. I don't think any of them are very good articles and probably would be in favour of a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I think List of publications of X with a notability criteria is the way to go - but that can't happen without blowing up all of these articles and starting over. BrigadierG (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Yes, I meant the nominated article but most others are also short on wikilinks. Even those that have articles, though, are almost all books or very old or written by the most famous scientists. Practically no journal articles would ever have an article. I don't think a list of primarily textbooks would be good content for a list of publications. However, if the criteria is simply being a publication with a WP article, that could also end up including books that aren't important yet someone happened to find some reviews and write and article. While I agree that "important" is subjective, are there actually any problems with these lists? Have people been arguing about what should be on them at all? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I think a book can meet the relevant wiki-notability standard and deserve an article without being epochal. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate article at Bibliography of cryptography (which I moved from Books on cryptography). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general. Picking them off one by one is not the way to go. That said, we HAVE criteria to determine if an article is notable and belongs on the list. If there is a reliable independent secondary source that says that it is notable then it should be on the list. Otherwise no. Simple as that. Cryptology is a mature and distinct enough field of study that it absolutely warrants a list like this if lists like this are deemed worthy to exist based on broader discussion. Epachamo (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that one source saying that a publication is noteworthy will always be enough. Plenty of books, papers, etc., get recommended as "further reading" at the end of textbook chapters. That's a degree of recognition, for sure, but it's a long way from "this paper won the authors a Nobel Prize". XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general.

This /is/ the discussion. If the outcome of this discussion is to delete, it creates precedent that makes the deletion of others more likely. The reverse is also true. Usually what happens if you try to open a broader discussion about deleting a larger set of articles in one go is people also beat that down with cries of WP:TRAINWRECK. It leads to a catch-22 keep vote - if you try to delete one at time, that's not acceptable because other similar articles exist and there needs to be more discussion, and if you try to delete more at a time that's also not acceptable because it's too many articles to evaluate the notability of in one go. BrigadierG (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As written, this list is under-sourced synth-cruft based on personal opinion. I'd be inclined to delete it. However, I think we ~~need~~ could maybe have a more broad discussion (an RfC or something of that sort) about whether lists like these are feasible and how to do them correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I went away, thought about it, read the list again, considered the comments here... and have settled on deletion being the way to go. Taken by itself, the page is just no good: ancient synth-cruft from a bygone age. Workable inclusion criteria have not emerged from the discussion here, so fixing the page (presuming that anyone is even willing to volunteer the time and effort) is not a viable option. A more general discussion about how to do historical bibliographies of technical fields still sounds like it could be useful, but there's no way that this list represents the right method. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list fails to have a clear selection criteria following WP:LISTCRIT and is largely personal opinion / WP:SYNTH. The alternative option of "renaming the list without 'important' and using a Wikipedia-notability criterion" doesn't work for this particular list because there is only one entry in the list with its own Wikipedia article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Iraq

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The norm on Wikipedia is an article on a country's postal code system in Category:Postal codes by country. In the case of Iraq, there's already Postal codes in Iraq. There's also a Category:Lists of postal codes, but this is sparsely populated, since in most cases an embedded list in the country article is sufficient. Postal codes in Iraq had its first reference added today, but more are needed, and the article needs expansion (and possibly updating) since it only describes the system implemented by the US there in 2004. There's nothing in this article worth merging there yet: it's literally a list of governates of Iraq, plus a single reference about Iraqi postal codes, with unclear reliability. Wikishovel (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we certainly don't need what is essentially duplicate information when Postal codes in Iraq hardly even suffices and has few citations. We certainly don't need a directory of the post codes {per the nom). Some similar lists have been deleted in recent years. ww2censor (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates Postal codes in Iraq. Orientls (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikishovel. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in California

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and California. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the linked Wikipedia page, the article topic (which is about festivals in California) needs to be talked as a whole in other sources. Such sources are not referenced. 47.153.138.166 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Rather than this silly WP:DELETIONIST approach, why WP:FIXIT. There's a whole category of festivals by state: Category:Lists of festivals in the United States by state and a parent article List_of_festivals_in_the_United_States. California is the most populous state, with some of the largest festivals in the country, e.g. Coachella. GobsPint (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in things from Category:Festivals in California, and made it into a table so it can show more information than just the name and the list. A valid list article now, more useful than just a simple category. Dream Focus 02:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has substantially improved. 174.194.136.188 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. BD2412 T 00:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D animation software

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability/usefulness not demonstrated. Just a list of licenses of softwares. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Software, and Lists. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list fails WP:NLIST as we cannot say that the list deserves to exist per the article's first sentence, "this is a list of 3D animation apps that have articles on Wikipedia". Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Why did you link something that literally contradicts what you said? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that one out Why? I Ask! I think it should therefore be kept. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since more information is shown. It is useful if you want to see a list of all the software of this type, and be able to sort it by its type of license to find what you are looking for. Additional information could be added, a column showing what year it became available, another column listing if its still being developed and if not just list when the last update was, etc. Dream Focus 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The mere fact that all of these have a Wikipedia page makes it a valid list under WP:LISTPURP. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to States of Guernsey#History. Not much to Merge but might be of interest Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral firsts in Guernsey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No room for "firsts" because it is trivial. Shankargb (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Fortnite Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE content that has nothing worth merging into Fortnite Festival. Unlike some other rhythm games, there is no worthwhile coverage of this games song selection, especially since it isn't based on DLC. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless WP:GAMECRUFT list, as said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not useless at all buddy, Guitar Hero games have list of songs and so do other song games like Just Dance, and Rock Band WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a topic better suited for some other wiki. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, like this man is hating on me and calling this wiki useless for no reason, even thought other music games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and Just Dance have a list of their songs in their wiki or a separate wiki. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait nvm you chose for it to be deleted as well, you guys make no sense WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Music. Wikishovel (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Shouldn't even be a section in the parent article, let alone its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
may I ask why? WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find a couple sources listing the songs. There may be some WP:NLIST potential, but GAMECRUFT and GAMEGUIDE make it a harder sell. I think a merge could be appropriate here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a job for a Spotify playlist and a specialist wiki, not us. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrSchimpf MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all the delete votes above. I will also add WP:NLIST, which works against the article rather than offering merge possibilities as speculated above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Svartner (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Canada

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)

List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present

List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)

List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918

List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present

Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present

NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Irish battles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Most entries WP:UNSOURCED, or WP:ONESOURCE by Standish Hayes O'Grady from 1892 (WP:AGEMATTERS). Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium
List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ireland. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Personally, I'd suggest merging the notable/supported entries (like the Battle of Magh Tuireadh and Battle of Maigh Mucruimhe) to Irish_battles#Prehistoric_era. Using WP:CSC as the selection criteria. And redirecting this title there. As an WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to only move the problem rather than solve it. I am considering nominating List of conflicts in Ireland next anyway, but decided it was best to look at Prehistoric Irish battles first. As such, I'm not opposed to merging/redirecting as an intermediate step. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information, with no context. Not remotely encyclopedic. None of these alleged battles ever happened. They are medieval literary traditions, not prehistoric events, and the dates given to them are completely arbitrary. Worthless. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like others. Orientls (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: agreed that this is INDISCRIMINATE and just not very useful. i'm surprised it's lasted 19+ years. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating rubbish for deletion is a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Penghu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would present something different from the above. I do see why this list existed in the first place. According to the respective article in zhwiki, the list was based on the umbrella term "澎湖四大戰役" (The Four Battles at Penghu), which I found occasional use in multiple academic journals and media articles. (For instance, a press release of Penghu County Government [2], articles from Central News Agency[3], SET News[4], Penghu Times [zh][5], and a Master thesis[6]) So I think this list actually touches on the criteria for WP:NLIST marginally. However, I do not think this term has any historical or academic significance aside from using it as a collective referral when analyzing Penghu's history and military status. These collective terms for a group of similar battles are very common and this particular one does not demonstrate too much value to fulfill WP:SALAT. Besides, three of the four battles already have their own articles, while the fourth one (The Siege of Fort Fongguei in 1624) is also an independent article on zhwiki [zh]. It is unnecessary to include summaries of these battles when there are extensive details in the main articles, and the fact that nothing much can be written in this list would result in failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Therefore, I think it is more than sufficient to let the listed battles have their independent articles, and the umbrella term can be mentioned within each of those independent articles, instead of having a stand-alone list that duplicates the content. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to Jasrasar. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Jasrasar Tehsil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Resubmitted with no improvement. I feel this is a list too far, or perhaps WP:TOOSOON insofar as almost none of this list have articles. If and when they do I will reach a different view 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasrasar Paradoctor (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - Does not satisfy list notability when, as the nominator has said, very few of the list entries are notable, so the list is not notable. If draftified, consider ECP-protection to avoid another move back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST: the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable. Otherwise, we'd have to scrap all of Category:Lists of minor planets.

For the present list, this is of course a moot point, as the list topic is not notable. Paradoctor (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always up for a merge, such as the one suggested by User:Paradoctor, but are these WP:POPULATED places? Populated, legally recognized places are basically always notable, and lists thereof are basically always kept. Also, we're allowed to have lists of non-notable places; this list appears to meet two of the three WP:Common selection criteria for lists (and you don't have to meet multiple criteria). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, these are villages, so presumably all populated. Unless there is an inordinate number of ghost towns in Jasrasar.

Also, we have two baker's dozen more lists like this one. Paradoctor (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasrasar. It's already been pointed out that it's absolutely NOT necessary for all contents of a list to be independently notable but this information makes better sense in the context of the article on the tehsil, which is notable. Ingratis (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

that is not a justification for deletion

Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of transcluded template? Noha307 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be it. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets LISTN and works better as a collection rather than splitting into separate lists for each aircraft series/type. Sounder Bruce 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reywas92. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WHA broadcasters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment so, if this list is up for deletion, why not include all the other broadcaster lists from other leagues and other sports? Examples List of current National Hockey League broadcasters, List of Edmonton Oilers broadcasters, Historical NHL over-the-air television broadcasters, List of historical Major League Baseball television broadcasters, and List of historical NBA over-the-air television broadcasters. There are lots of other similar list artices. ~~I'm leaning towards keep for this article unless it can be made clear why this article should be deleted and the others kept.~~ Masterhatch (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - After I posted that comment, I had looked at SpacedFarmers edit history and saw that he is in fact nominating multiple similar articles and that he wasn't just picking on some obscure WHA article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjects fails WP:LISTN. Individual parts might be sourced, but as a whole they fail notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to meet the criteria set by WP:NLIST as the broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The World Hockey Association like the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association in professional basketball, is an essential part of the overall history of the National Hockey League. Like was the case with the prior ABA–NBA merger, four of the WHA's franchises were absorbed into the NHL. Television and radio media coverage are for better or worse, an essential part of a sports league's history. The WHA may or may not, have sped up NHL's expansion process. As the story goes, NHL showed little to no interest in any expansion until it was informed in 1965 that without expansion, it would not receive a network television deal. So fearing the loss of television revenues and the emergence of a rival league in the WHA, the NHL expanded to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. This Sports Illustrated article from June 1973 notes that the WHA in contrast to the NHL's then recent problems, could be have stronger bargaining power in negotiating television contracts. So all in all, how exactly is it merely and little more than "listcruft" to discuss the WHA's media history? It's noted in the article that CBS aired some of the WHA's games for a brief while during the early 1970s. Meanwhile, this book excerpt, briefly discusses whether or not the New England (later Hartford) Whalers games were blacked out WKBG whenever the Boston Bruins of the NHL were at home. Also, noteworthy is that the Michigan Stags where unable to secure a television deal (except for a one-off broadcast on WXON Channel 20 in 1974). Here's an article from The New York Times from 1975 on the Michigan Stags' troubles: W.H.A. Outlook Brighter Despite Stags’ Collapse BornonJune8 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is exactly my question as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reformat per BornonJune8's comment and the subsequent discussion. Perhaps draftify, even? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: My only concern with draftification is that, when closing discussions, I typically look for someone who's actually volunteers to take on the task if draftified. Otherwise, we sometimes end up with a delayed (G13) deletion result. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BornonJune8's comments. Certainly this article could be better. But I think this is a pass of WP:LISTN, and is simply not feasible to include as a section in the WHA article itself. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[7]] and [[8]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN personalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] and [[12]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Radio personalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], and [[16]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure the nom did a proper WP:BEFORE search because from what I'm seeing this seems to pass WP:NLIST based on some searching. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 19:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Looks like a consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of past ESPN personalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This group has been covered in secondary sources, such as [[17]], [[18]] and [[19]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles of 'personalities' being laid off, just a small selection of this list. Doesn't have much relations with it though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the entire grouping needs to be covered for WP:NLIST to be met. If you want a wider selection covered, there is [[20]]. Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting alls under WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ESPN personalities. I agree with Let'srun that there are indeed sources to attribute to this, but the past can merge with the main article. No need to fork it. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Let'srun. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree on keeping, the topic has received coverage in secondary sources. Waqar💬 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer, I see your remarks as a Keep vote, no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I specifically didn't !vote keep because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a delete. The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable group of individuals covered by a group in reliable sources. The article needs improved, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint George S.C. players

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this list of self-selected players meets the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero notability, a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the top football team in Ethiopia, and is well sourced. I fail to see why WP:LISTN doesn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I tend to agree with SportingFlyer. I'm not sure how this can be see has having "zero notability" if it is the best football team in Ethiopia. It is also universally discussed "as a group or set" by nature, working it into the threshold of WP:NLIST. I think this falls under WP:BIAS to a large degree, as well. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club was founded in 1935 and such a list would purport to include players from the club's entire existence. There is a huge WP:V barrier that I don't see this list overcoming. How to verify which players played for Saint George SC, how many matches (i.e. who surpassed the 50-match mark, 100, 250 etc.) and when? To me that would seem equally impossible as maintaining and updating the list. Finally, deleting it removes nothing of value, as a category does the job much better. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments to keep are fairly weak: are there independent sources for the list entries? Maybe we can come to a consensus by remedying this apparent lack of independent coverage (or by determining that there is not significant independent coverage).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lists of people, including players of sports teams, must demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Upon review, the article lacks sufficient citations from such sources to establish the notability of individual players. While Saint George S.C. is a notable club, the roster of its players as presented does not meet the threshold for inclusion as per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability. Therefore, based on the current state of the article and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, deletion is warranted unless substantial, reliable sources are provided to establish the significance of the players listed. This action ensures the integrity and reliability of information presented on Wikipedia, maintaining standards of verifiability and notability across all articles.Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true - lists do not need to demonstrate the notability of individual items. Furthermore there's plenty of sources in the article such as [21] which clearly shows by listing all of the Ugandans which have played for the club that the information is available, probably in Amharic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yakov-kobi: Please stop posting AI-generated comments in AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. There is consensus that this list runs afoul of WP:NOT and that it would become increasingly more difficult to maintain in its current format, with no consensus for an appropriate change in scope. ^Complex/_Rational 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. – Hilst [talk] 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is another factor:

Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.

There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as it pains me to say, having spent plenty of time maintaining it, I do agree with this one. There are so many matches now that the list will become unmanageable. I don't think we should restrict to FM (Test playing) nations as that would then be an incomplete, caveated list, in which two centuries in the same match might be treated differently. What's more, I would suggest that we also looks at List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket and List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket for the same reasons (those are probably worse, I have stopped regularly working on those some time ago). Bs1jac (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are, alas too many featured lists we will be saying goodbye too :( Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bs1jac: One solution could be to split the "Highest individual score" section of the List of Twenty20 International records into the top 5 or 10 scores by full member batsman and the top 5 or 10 scores by associate batsman. The records on that page are already dominated by lower-level associates. AA (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That doesn't apply to this discussion, but regardless a century is a century so it would be difficult to justify having a records page that only included selected entries. As someone mentioned here, if say Bangladesh play a lower-level associate such as Maldives in a qualifier tournament and both teams had a player score a century, we would only be including the one scored by the Bangladesh player (against a weaker bowling unit) and not the one scored against them. Bs1jac (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is true. One of many reasons associates outside the ODI playing associates should never have been given T20I status. But something beyond our control! AA (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. T20I hundred used to be prestigious/rare and still is but only when it is scored by a player of Test playing nation. Filtering this list with Test playing nation criteria would be WP:OR, so unfortunately we cannot maintain this list of T20I hundreds for all teams. Instead, we should encourage editors to create separate pages by team (like List of Australian Twenty20 International cricket centurions) if they are discussed by independent references as a set/group (which I think would be possible for countries like Australia, India, England, etc.) 188.29.200.166 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is with a heavy heart that I vote this way as I was the editor that shepherded this through the Featured List process back in 2017. This was status of list then with the pioneers of the fledging international format before the ICC granted every Associate nation T20I status in 2019. This has become and will continue to be very bloated. Of note, if we were to restrict this list to the centuries scored in T20Is between Full Member nations only it be 67 compared to the current unrestricted number of 150. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to ESPNU. No participation in the past 7 days changes the outcome determined by the previous closer, Star Mississippi. I see no reason to contradict their decision last week. I don't think additional relistings would help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNU personalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group does not have the requisite coverage in secondary sources as a group to meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNU as an WP:ATD. It serves as a WP:NAVIGATION, but there are no grouping sources for satisfying WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and fails verification; a spot-check of articles linked (Joe Davis (sportscaster), Mike Crispino, Andy Katz) shows none of them mention ESPNU, just ESPN in general. The concept of being an "ESPNU personality" (separate from other ESPN brands) does not appear to exist. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there was a consensus for a merge as a viable ATD, but nom's request for a relist is reasonable, so I have done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to ESPNews. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per running consensus. Not everything British is notable, and knowing the kings of England and quoting the fights historical will only get you so far. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The consensuses in the other discussions raise the same issues found here, and given that, I don't see a compelling reason why England should be treated differently. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe & JoelleJay above. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like other similar ones. Lorstaking (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Prehistoric Irish battles has been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric Irish battles. NLeeuw (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. The discussion did not generate a consensus as to whether, as a fork, the article is redundant or justified. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [22][23][24][25][26]. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National_Park_Service#Nomenclature already has this information, and the fold out templates link to the various list articles that have things in them. List of national monuments of the United States, List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#National_historical_parks, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, etc. Dream Focus 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dream Focus and Mangoe. Simply being useful is not enough to justify this redundant fork. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' @OneEarDrummer, Reywas92, and Oaktree b: if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the main article a bit long in my opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would make the main article long (either on the NPS page or the NPS areas page), but I would rather have that than for the content to be completely deleted. The table needs to exist somewhere. The NPS areas page has too much additional information to just say someone can dig through all of it to find the list of the current NPS official units. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology, but perhaps it could be "collapsed" on the main NPS page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.176.175 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system. This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list. But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse. 108.48.176.251 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. There was no support for an outright deletion. Therefore, a merger would be an alternative to Keep, not an ATD. There was rough consensus that not all three articles - Fantastic Beasts, List of Fantastic Beasts cast members and this one - should exist independently, but no consensus as to which should be merged into what. Such controversial mergers are best handled editorially on the repsective articles' Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of "List of X characters" is X, and we're agreed that Fantastic Beasts itself is notable, so questioning the notability of "X characters" as a topic is a red herring. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [27], [28], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [29], [30], and with a fun bit of analysis, [31]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. The article is poorly sourced, but a clean-up and merge offers a way to arrive at a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for deletion only lists surmountable problems. In my opinion, it is the cast member list that should be merged here, not vice-versa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can't close this discussion as a reverse merge as the other article has not been tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and most participants have just commented about the article nominated, not a separate article. That would have to be a separate, new Merge discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on merge target Cast and characters are different topics. Character lists for fictional franchise exist across many more topics than do those for lists of cast members, since many representations (books, manga, etc.) have no cast members and others (animation) have only voice cast. Merging this into the cast members article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic. Lorstaking (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @The Quirky Kitty points out, enjoyable to read and as @Walsh90210 says the category gets enough discussion as a category to satisfy WP:NLIST.
The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g 🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.

"Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.

"What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.

"8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.

"10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.

"Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.

"9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.

Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.

Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2

Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.

Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015

Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.

Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf

Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image_stitching#Software: until better sourcing is found. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much work has been done here but it is simply not encyclopaedic enough. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge‎ to The Sarah Jane Adventures. While arguments for deletion are weak, the rough consensus is that the content is better suited for the target article than for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists' topic is the fictional element (The Sarah Jane Adventures), and are roundly considered to meet CSC #2. That is, no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^{[by whom?]} 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures has commentary on the characters in the series, starting from Sarah Jane, but also about the other characters as a group. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If asked to decide I would prefer keeping to merging. Hopefully there will be more input. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHOCARES is not a valid argument. (and there is an awful lot wrong with fandom) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow: Fixed unclosed small HTML tag that caused display problems on pages transcluding this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the WP:Common selection criteria for lists is that all the listed items are non-notable. See, e.g., List of minor characters in the Alice series. Other lists, such as List of generation I Pokémon, mix notable and non-notable characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.

2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.

As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.

Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify a thing here. WP:LISTPURP is a manual of style, and explain what purposes of lists are; it now a way to determine notability, which can only be done through WP:NLIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as deprodder. In my view it meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:NLIST and I feel this is a commonsensical call. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a list article relating to a notable hobby (stamp collecting) and with notable members (stamp clubs)—although arguably the latter is not a requirement for a list topic; you could have a list article even if none of its members are individually notable. It is not necessary to find a reliable source that says, "the following is a list of stamp clubs in the United States", but any source that does something along those lines may be cited, even if it is A) a directory—Wikipedia is not a directory; that doesn't mean that directories cannot be used as sources—or B) it only lists some of the clubs mentioned in this list. It is unnecessary to cite a source to say that a club whose name identifies what it is is a stamp club. At most, individual items that are identifiable as stamp clubs by their name just need a source to show that they exist (or did at one point), and for that purpose a directory is fine. Even this is unnecessary for items that link to articles about notable clubs, which are documented in the linked articles. Satisfying these requirements should be exceptionally easy... P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now cited as many of the entries as I could find at least a directory or event listing for in general philatelic literature. And to repeat, WP:DIRECTORY does not apply here; it is well-established that items that are not individually notable may be combined into list articles. Stamp collecting is clearly a notable topic, and as mentioned above there is indeed considerable literature on the subject, including stamp collecting societies, their history, membership, and publications. I have cited a number of examples to verify the stamp clubs listed; there was of course much more activity and many more publications in the early twentieth century, when social clubs and their publications were a staple of American life.

Most of this body of literature is not freely-accessible online, but enough is available in previews and snippet views on Google Books to verify the existence of most of the stamp clubs mentioned, along with their location and some other details—and for the purposes of this article, which is merely a list of philatelic societies in the United States, that is sufficient to warrant their inclusion. Many more could be added if the literature on the subject were easier to access, or someone spent more than a couple of days poring over such periodicals at the library. P Aculeius (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[32]] (1/3), [[33]] (2/3), [[34]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. I'm not sure why this discussion kept being relisted as there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts, per Conyo14, with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per BD2412. My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus‎. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed deletions

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Lists==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with three entries}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Film_festivals_in_Pristina}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_battle_for_campaign_of_northern_and_eastern_Honan_1938}}