Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,256,093 edits
Line 9: Line 9:
==Lists==
==Lists==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_rogue_security_software}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Football Superleague of Kosovo broadcasters}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Football Superleague of Kosovo broadcasters}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters}}

Revision as of 15:31, 27 April 2024

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rogue security software

List of rogue security software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTDATABASE. Wikipedia is not a malware database. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable entries to justify a list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A large number of the bluelinks are duplicates pointing to the same set of articles, and a large number of the remainder are themselves undergoing deletion processes as non-notable.. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete- Agree with nom, Wikipedia should not serve as a database for malware every and all malware samples. Most of the entries on this list are non-notable (failing WP:SUSTAINED) Sohom (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta: Did you mean to support deletion? This looks like a delete argument but "keep" is bolded. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I meant to support deletion. Sohom (talk) 16:12, 29 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football Superleague of Kosovo broadcasters

List of Football Superleague of Kosovo broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:43, 26 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters

List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are entirely primary, are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 26 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Primera División broadcasters

List of Argentine Primera División broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 26 April 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is WP:LISTCRUFT and not encyclopedic. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:19, 2 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of company name etymologies

List of company name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see how this subject possibly meets the criteria in WP:notability#Stand-alone lists. Searching for "how did companies get their names", there are a number of hits, but 1) most of them are blogs and forums, and 2) most of them are about a selected set of companies. I hven't found anything which treats the question as a general topic. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about List of companies named after people? Should we keep that page, delete it or redirect List of company name etymologies to it? BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list contains mainly WP:PRIMARY as the source to the companies. However, I do think this can meet WP:LISTN if the list is trimmed to source-able material. I have found the topic to be notable per [1], [2], as well as [3] and to some extent [4].Conyo14 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first (Business Insider) of these four and I'm not impressed. For "Amazon": "Bezos reportedly wanted a name that began with 'A' so it would appear near the top of an alphabetical list". Uh-huh: if he'd chosen "Advance", say, it would have been a lot nearer. Ah, but there was another reason: "He thought the world's largest river was an apt name for what he hoped could be its biggest business." Even granting that the man was and is ambitious, hoping to sell rivers boggles the mind. And something else was meant, then what? None of these etymologies in this Business Insider thing is sourced, suggesting that they could be merely write-ups of office water-cooler chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Conyo14 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would one reliable source reference other reliable sources? They do research themselves, they don't just make things up. Dream Focus 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, Dream Focus, the particular "reliable source" (web page) doesn't look to me as if it's a reliable source. Its content seems sloppily thought out and sloppily written up. (And this is hardly surprising: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Business Insider.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable aspect of a company that gets coverage. 176 references in the article so far, some of them are valid, plus the articles linked to will mention how the companies got their names. Dream Focus 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that LISTN is met, but I think the best solution is to purge and move to company name, where patterns in choices of company name can be discussed. (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I struggle to imagine what the scenario is here. Are we assuming that anyone, ever, who was curious about the origin of the name of a company thought "Hey, instead of just looking up the name of the company and reading that article, I will type in "List of company name etymologies" and then search for it there"? The point was also made on the talk page that this technically is not etymology at all, which our own article defines as is the scientific study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time not "Earnst & Young is named after two guys, one was Earnst and the other was Young". So it isn't even what it says it is, much of it is unsourced, and the general concept of how companies get their names has not been demonstrated to be a notable subject. Deletion is the logical outcome here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I was the proposer of this deletion, I don't think that Just Step Sideways's arguments are germane. See WP:WEDONTNEEDIT for the first one, and for the second, that might be an argument to retitle the list (though I don't think it is) but it is not relevant to whether to delete it or not.
    ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of this could indeed be added to Company name, if some onomastically-informed person cared to create such an article. (I'm not qualified.) Failing that, delete in accordance with the nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a difference between a well-sourced encyclopedic topic and internet click-bait. Editors here should not have to struggle to tell the difference. We don't have topics on Things People Don't Know About Air Fryers or Habits Cat-Owners Have that Dog-Owners Don't even though you'll find those topics have also been written about, countless times, in various publications. Fails our criteria for notability and fails WP:LISTN. HighKing++ 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. No evidence that this is independently notable in any real sense. Poor quality journalistic filler about a few arbitrary 'famous' names doesn't make the entire topic significant. People give many things (material and immaterial) names, as a matter of course. Doing so for companies is nothing special. And as an aside, I'd have to suggest that etymology, properly defined, has nothing much to do with the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 3 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian Pro League broadcasters

List of Belgian Pro League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Belgium. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the premise of the AfD. Also, what a weird list! Hardly any core and almost everything out of scope. Also by SPINOFF/SPINOUT (information governance) logic, the article doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 27 April 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 Czech First League#Media coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech First League broadcasters

List of Czech First League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. How do "Delete" voters think about the possibility of a Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters

List of Indian Super League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters

AfDs for this article:
List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to voerages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters

List of Bundesliga broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 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.

List of La Liga broadcasters

List of La Liga broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NLIST. Refs in article do not discuss the subject - the broadcasters - as a group by independent sources, they are routine sports news; the list serves no CLN purpose.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. It is also one of the most important soccer leagues in the world, not the San Marino league. It has the same or more merit of existing than articles like List of NBA broadcasters, MLB broadcasters or NFL broadcasters. It has potential to continue improving, perhaps some things can be corrected but it should not be eliminated.--Edu1388 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. I seem to get taken to DRV when I close discussions like this to Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters

List of Serie A broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: At the similar AfD for Copa Sudamericana broadcasters, you !voted Redirect rather than Delete. Do you think a redirect isn't a viable alternative to deletion in this case? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to a redirect. GiantSnowman 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serie A#Television rights (a section which could be renamed to "Media coverage"). Absent media coverage about the list as a topic, I agree that I don't think this is a list within Wikipedia's scope that is therefore worth preserving per WP:NOT, but the topic does merit some encyclopedic coverage in the context of Serie A, and it is a reasonable redirect as an alternative to deletion. I do not think there is anything worth merging, though preserving the page history allows an interested editor to do so if they disagree. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no objection to a cheap consensus redirect to Serie A#Television rights, but don't find it useful.  // Timothy :: talk  07:32, 2 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Süper Lig broadcasters

List of Süper Lig broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source are nothing but news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and NOTTVGUIDE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Blazar characters

List of Ultraman Blazar characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem like the characters of this show are discussed in any reliable sources individually or as a group. This article uses primary sources exclusively, and I could not find any good sources in my BEFORE check. The one interwiki link also had little of use. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan

List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dump of a 1000 names. Strongly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Names are even in Cyrillic, so not readable for most readers of an encyclopedia that uses a Latin alphabet. I am also nominating:

List of the most popular given names of Kazakh men of Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DIR. In 2024, everyone knows: we are not a directory like this list. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 30 April 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 Draftify‎ as per the request of established editors which also preserves attribution for any future merges or restoration Star Mississippi 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Totally based on original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTH of different sources, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. Moreover, this is a fan page.
Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the mention of "Muslim" in the title triggers concern, I wouldn't object to substituting it with "Foreign." This adjustment would certainly broaden the article's scope, potentially addressing concerns about it being considered xenophobic (or the "Indian"). Never knew personal feelings are taken as a valid rise. Regarding original research, it seems that most list-type articles here follow a similar format; moreover, each entry appears to be properly cited, doesn't it?Imperial[AFCND] 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks more like a fan page than a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:OR. A broad brush cannot be used for paintaining a very long period of history as mere "Muslim conquests" unless there are scholarly sources but they don't exist in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ImperialAficionado: the above delete votes are IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. Don't worry about this discussion, the article clearly meets WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, even if it needs work.
  • Note to closer: If you intend to close as delete, I request a courtesy Draft on behalf of @ImperialAficionado: to preserve the contributor history. If you are not willing to do this, please WP:REFUND to Imperial's userspace (or mine) after deletion.
Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this. Imperial[AFCND] 14:02, 6 May 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 Football in Wallis and Futuna. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Wallis and Futuna

List of football clubs in Wallis and Futuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations, all the blue links are redirects or links to cities/towns on the islands. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:27, 25 April 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. Sandstein 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page has a single source, and none of these are legitimate clubs. They are only teams that happened to be registered with that name, and seemingly never operated at any capacity outside of amateur tournaments that took place years ago. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like a WP:HOAX. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say hoax- there are supporting sources at RSSSF, this is just not notable at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I was mistaken. I thought that when you said "legitimate clubs" that you meant they didn't actually exist. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, these teams aren't hoaxes, but this sounds more equivalent to your local softball league sponsored by taverns and breweries in the United States more than a group of even semi-pro teams and they're there for fun, not glory. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Or redirect to Football in the Marshall Islands. Football is completely incipient there, just like Niue, FS Micronesia or Palau. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would consider this as village club teams that do not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While these clubs do exist, they are too insignificant for coverage. Samoht27 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 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. SNOW Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian names of primate families

Bosnian names of primate families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:DICDEF. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 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. Discussion about splitting may continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of figure skaters

List of figure skaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grossly out-of-date and incomplete. Even if the list WERE complete AND up-to-date, there is no lead section, no cited sources, AND no explanation why this list is encyclopedically notable. In the current form, it will never meet the requirements of a quality list article on Wikipedia. I also don't really get the purpose of this article. For searching figure skaters, we have the category "figure skaters", which has the big advantage that newly-created biographies are automatically added there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is nonsense. It tries to justify deletion by pointing out ways that the article could be improved, which assumes that the article should be kept in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational list created on Jul 4th, 2008. It would be more useful if all the names were in columns, with columns available to show more information about them. Dream Focus 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just finished adding sortable columns. Dream Focus 02:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment Someone can close this AFD as it has received no other delete votes and the article can be salvaged. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List is valid and may require updating and addition of other entries. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't need a complete list of every figure skater ever in one article. ON the topic of other articles, WP:OSE applies, but also Lists of tennis players is links to lots of different sub-articles with specific criteria, List of current AFC team rosters and List of female American football players has sufficiently few people that an encyclopedic article with text could be created. Listing thousands of figure skaters in one article would make a ridiculously long article, which isn't needed. Splitting by winning significant events e.g. world/continental championships would be sensible, but this article is and always will be a directory violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Too large to justify a single list. PetScan counts 4825 articles within the Category:Figure skaters tree, which are almost all biographies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been working on this article, and we can easily split it into 1) men’s singles, 2) women’s singles, 3) pairs, and 4) ice dance; with this article left as a disambiguating page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:46, 30 April 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.

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. trout Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNS blacklists

Comparison of DNS blacklists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 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.

List of Polish military aircraft

List of Polish military aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is unnecessary duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. I don't see any good reason to such duplication, given that duplication is generally discouraged in Wikipedia as duplicate articles is difficult to maintain, and also outlined in WP:DUPLICATE.

Aside of duplication issue. It seems the duplicate article is created to trying to work around the consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table which was recently informed to creator of this duplicate article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (2): the article is now also duplicate with to Polish Navy#Aircraft, so the lead sentence is revised to reflect this duplicate. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (3): also tried WP:A10, but was blocked. lead sentence is rewrited to remove duplicate arguments. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:

Military, Transportation, Lists, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If this should be deleted, then be consistent and recommend the deletion of:
Because individual lists exist for each branch, and then another summary exists. The problem of the list in the other pages is that it lacks details, and people don't want additional details there. At least here, there is more clarity.
If the images are a problem, then it should be a problem with
Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, if it was really a duplicate then it may be on my next to do list. Afeterall, I do have history to remove duplicate table Air Force inventory table in the past, such as Yemeni Air Force, Gabon Air Force, Indonesian Air Force, and more. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focusre: This article is duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Wikipedia in general is against duplication articles. Regarding images on table, we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You link to a discussion had in 2015, with 4 wanting to get rid of images like this, and 1 wanting to keep it. So 5 people decided something in a two week discussion most never noticed, 9 years ago. I think a new discussion is warranted with greater participation, and not just about aircraft, but list of tanks, ships, and whatnot. Dream Focus 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that consensus can change per WP:CCC. However, until new consensus reached, it doesn't means we can disregard existing consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presence or absence of photos is irrelevant re AfD. @Ckfasdf: put the "disruptive editing" cudgel away.  // Timothy :: talk  15:29, 2 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! 22:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakaria1978: If we look up Russian Aerospace Forces, Russian Naval Aviation and Russian Ground Forces, we'll notice that none of them include aircraft inventory tables. Instead, all Russian military aircraft are listed in the article titled List of active Russian military aircraft, hence no duplication issue or not WP:REDUNDANTFORK. However, this differs from the approach taken in Polish military articles, where each branch has its own aircraft inventory table: Polish Air Force#Aircraft, Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. These tables are duplicate information found in the List of Polish military aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Content is well sourced, I can't see merging with parents due to size, community consensus accepts these military equipment lists generally meet notability requirements. I do think the duplicate lists in the individual branch articles should be removed and replaced with a hat pointing to the appropriate spot in this list, eg: rm Polish Air Force#Aircraft and replace with hatnote to List of Polish military aircraft#Polish air force.  // Timothy :: talk  07:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: The existing parent articles (such as Polish Air Force, Polish Land Forces, and Polish Navy) already contain lists of military equipment. According to WP:SIZE, a WP:SPINOFF is warranted only if there are concerns about article size. However, the parent articles size are not excessively large, ranging from only 250-350kB. Therefore, there appears to be no necessity for a WP:SPLITLIST at this time. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is not black and white, there are plenty of gray areas where an issue is either up to editorial discretion or community consensus. In this case their is a community consensus that these lists (Lists of military equipment) are generally notable, useful for readers, and having the information in one place is easier to keep updated. I see no reason to have this information split into multiple articles. The editors in this thread seem to agree.  // Timothy :: talk  15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that not everything is black and white, plenty of gray, and there are even times when rules can be ignored per WP:IAR, there must be a compelling reason to justify such exceptions, like bypassing WP:SIZE guidelines. While the List by itself is generally notable, the issue at hand involves potential duplication. If we look up other Air Forces pages, it's evident that out of 147 Air Force articles, 128 integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, while only 17 opt for separate presentation, including as a List. This indicates that the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table to readers is within the air force article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Transclusion can be a solution if keeping material current is a concern. See List of active United States Air Force aircraft. Schierbecker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a very well phrased rationale; issues have been identified, alternatives have been considered, and deletion has been requested in accordance with our policies and guidelines. The only reason to keep would be to merge it properly by removing the texts from the 3 source pages and removing the images as demanded by Convention. NLeeuw (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. The nominator might have more success with a compelling Merger proposal rather than a strong demand to delete an article that other editors find appropriate. But without providing a new perspective, this discussion is verging on bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: As I mentioned on the lead, if the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, or Polish Navy#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. But, they are three different list belong to different branch of armed forces. And 128 of 147 Air Force articles integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, which indicates the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Book of Mormon places

List of Book of Mormon places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 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 Webster University#Campus. I see a general consensus to Redirect and no additional support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webster University campus locations

List of Webster University campus locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic content per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Webster University#Campus. If it doesn't exist there, merge the citation so the source of the full list is still available to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose a redirect, it's not a plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    /agree but redirects are cheap.  // Timothy :: talk  06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. Fails NLIST and CLN as a stand alone list. List entirely sourced to a single page on the subject website.  // Timothy :: talk  06:51, 2 May 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 00:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe

List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 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 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non- notable article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."

There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.

Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.

I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 22 April 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 05:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collection of random buildings in the city and doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The sources used are either dead or primary, with no SIGCOV in any independent reliable sources justifying the existence of any such list. Except one, none of the buildings listed aren't notable by itself, and hence WP:SALAT is not justified. WP:NOTDIR applies too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 April 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 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Larry Bird

List of career achievements by Larry Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely an indiscriminate list of statistics that is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 22 April 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. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds from India

List of dog breeds from India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already a category for this and no other specific dog breed lists exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list has more information than a category so is thus more useful. There is no reason they can't both exist, in according to the rules. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Perfect valid information and navigational list. Adding in images and additional information, like List of Italian dog breeds has, would make it even more useful for these two purposes. Dream Focus 00:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case WP:NLIST applies, which I believe is failed. Reliable sources discuss dog breeds within India (which includes many foreign breeds), but not specifically breeds of Indian origin. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the second paragraph in that. 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 ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 01:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Indian dogs}}: I'm not a fan of this list because it seems to be something of an duplicate and unintentional content fork from the Indian dogs template and the List of Dog Breeds. I massively overhauled this list awhile back because it had deviated from the template quite significantly (and it was unsourced). I anticipate it will continue to be poorly maintained as it's not the usual place we list dogs by country in WP:Dogs - again thats usually the navigational templates. There is precedence for articles (not lists) on broad categories of dogs associated with a country, such as China's tugou or Russia's Laika (dog type), these dogs have extensive history and development that ties them together; however, Indian dog breeds dont share such a set of characteristics. Apologies for the rambling. Cheers! Annwfwn (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this list should be kept. It helps us who are from india to look up indian dogs. 2409:4071:DBA:E3E9:8848:14F:71D3:A287 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category for this: [8] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 1 May 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.

List of Power Sphera Universe media

List of Power Sphera Universe media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography: Smells like fancruft/listcruft, and fails NLIST, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Found promo, listings, nothing from independent sources showing this meets NLIST. I thought about CLN, but don't think the few entries here need a second separate navigation list from Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Power Sphera Universe does not exist, and it doesn't appear there is WP:SIRS for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A notable franchise There are links to articles about the notable films and television shows in it. Perfectly valid navigational and information list. This format is more useful than just the template or a category, since it list how many episodes there were, the date of its original run, and the names of key people involved. Dream Focus 18:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about waste management and recycling

List of books about waste management and recycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of a few books about Waste management and recycling. Nothing to show that such a list has any intrinsic notability. Sources are for lists of books or links to google pages or library pages featuring specific books. The real bibliography for this topic would run to many thousands of books. This is a very small sub-set weith no indication that they are particulalrly relevant etc. There is a chance the list might be notable if the list was of notable books, but it isn't. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:45, 20 April 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola seasons

List of Girabola seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list of seasons can already be found in the main article Girabola, another duplicate article being unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, Svartner doesn't advocate deletion of the individual seasons, just the overarching list - which adds exactly nothing to the category. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, my question is whether there is a separate list if the main article already includes a list of seasons. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its unneeded. also kind of goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The way the article is made, it may as well just be a category page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The seasons are listed in the template. If no other information is in the list article, it becomes pointless. Dream Focus 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/improve, in-line with List of Premier League seasons etc. This is Morocco's Angola's top football competition. GiantSnowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I am at abstained vote here.) This list could be more useful if done right. As GS pointed out we do have them. And @GiantSnowman: this is the Angolan league, not the Moroccan! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, getting Girabola mixed up with Botola! GiantSnowman 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - at the moment this is a duplicative, unnecessary article, but there's the potential for a better article here if someone wants to create something more detailed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Svartner, Shadow311, Dream Focus, Govvy, and SportingFlyer: I have started the process of converting into a proper list a la List of Premier League seasons, just need someone with time and knowledge to help... GiantSnowman 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... GiantSnowman 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I've just noticed has pages for every individual season, such as 1979, 1980 etc. As such, if you still don't want to keep, please agree to draftify so I can work on it. GiantSnowman 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with draftification, but I do hope it's more comprehensive than just what's on the Girabola page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which it would be if you check my edits to this article... GiantSnowman 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a big difference between the Premier League and the Angolan championship. The list of seasons is duplicated, as it is also included in the main article Girabola. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Girabola#Girabola_participation_details list all the information doesn't it? Dream Focus 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That section is absolutely incomprehensible! I have deleted. GiantSnowman 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm with GiantSnowman here. This article needs work, but that is not a reason for deletion, especially if it not an obvious WP:TNT. This article has a lot of potential à la List of Premier League seasons, so it's not a TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Right now it does contain dupliate information, but it meets WP:CLN as a navigation list. I agree this article (and the articles in this category) need cleanup and sources. Aside from CLN, I think this would be discussed as a group in reliable sources. I don't think this rises to the point of needing TNT.  // Timothy :: talk  05:53, 2 May 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 Through the Dragon's Eye. ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Article can be restored if a Merge is an outcome editors want. For now, if you are seeking a Merge or Redirect, please list the Merge target article in your nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interventions by Russia

Foreign interventions by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up for deletion because the scope of the list does not seem consistent with the style or content of lists of this type in other parts of the wiki. Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 April 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:15, 29 April 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 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in France

Sports broadcasting contracts in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:15, 29 April 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 23:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam

AfDs for this article:
Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:54, 30 April 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× ☎ 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Thailand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT, but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] If the page does get deleted it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on sources found. Deletion is not cleanup. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite sources, will never pass WP:NLIST. A list wihtout body text for context will never pass GNG too. This is 2024, not 2004. Wikipedia standards has gone a long way since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a tv guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 4 May 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 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 21 April 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, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 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! 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 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) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 29 April 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 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters

List of EuroLeague broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 April 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 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 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 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 21 April 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, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:13, 29 April 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 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 April 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, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 29 April 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! 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of home appliances

List of home appliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

hopelessly open-ended and best left for a category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The rules clearly state you shouldn't delete a list because you prefer categories. List are always more useful than categories since they allow more information to be listed. Category:Home appliances exist, so this is a perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 22:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is establishing a selection criteria. I could probably cross well over the thousand pages mark for things that could plausibly be considered a home appliance. Everything from the Mangle to the Smart speaker to the George Foreman Grill. Don't forget brands too - your Magic Bullets, your Sodastream or your Vitamix. If a home appliance is just any kind of powered tool intended for consumer use, then let's make sure we cover our ground - the Treadmill, Shake weight, and any other fitness device ever sold on an infomercial are all fair game. Everyone needs to do some odd jobs around the house with their Electric screwdriver. It's too broad and I'm not sure how to make it a comprehensive article. Open to responses, currently leaning delete. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference for where a reliable source called an item a "home appliance" could be required. Dream Focus 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just turned the article into a table and found reliable source references for some things listed on it. It also list what year the item was commercially available for the average home. Dream Focus 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Home appliance; a separate page is not needed. It would also duplicate Small appliance, Major_appliance#Types, and List of cooking appliances, so it's superfluous. The missing examples above seem irrelevant though, the list should have criteria that excludes brands, but would include blender and Soda machine (home appliance). I don't think exercise machines are considered appliances, but either way there are other pages that can or do list home appliances so this one is not also necessary. Reywas92Talk 03:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 13 April 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, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the list should be restricted to home appliances that get asked about in censuses? 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:B5DB:C733:E510:202F (talk) 16:19, 24 April 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 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:
Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 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, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 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. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

French exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French exonyms for Dutch toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for German toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
    That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [25] [26] [27], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 April 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, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Agletarang (talk) 09:28, 2 May 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:
Turkish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [28] [29], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 April 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. I don't see a consensus here. You are free to pursue other alternatives like Redirection or Merge but starting discussions on the article talk pages or make a return trip to AFD in a few months when participation levels in AFDs will hopefully return to high numbers which would make determining a consensus more likely. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French words of English origin

List of French words of English origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French words of Gaulish origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (A-B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (C-G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French words of Germanic origin (H–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 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, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.
This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A selfie is égoportrait [30], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 23 April 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. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

Sports broadcasting contracts in Central America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sports broadcasting contracts in Middle East & North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. The difference between this and others you mentioned (or some) is that they are in a better quality and this isn't. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists&oldid=1221052779"