Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:43, 2 May 2024

WP:DSLIST

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters

(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, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [1], [2] and [3].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All 14 sources are WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters

(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. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these from 2023's: [4] and [5]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 16 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 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!} 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards broadcasters

(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. Sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 12 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!} 03:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pro Bowl broadcasters

(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. One of the source are causal mentions. Some are YouTube, if not dead links. Many others are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 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, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copa América Centenario broadcasting rights

(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 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) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 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 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. ✗plicit 03:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by James Harden

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

Another list of primarily indiscriminate trivia, which is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 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 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports teams nicknamed Titans

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

This is a grouping not discussed elsewhere, and fails to meet the criteria set by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Especially when high school teams were brought up, and then even middle school. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable grouping -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also Wikipedia:Set index articles; no shared characteristic, only the name.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A perfect example of WP:FANCRUFT. Svartner (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, and trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 19:16, 7 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.

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 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) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] [8] and [9] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [10], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [11], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [12], [13], [14], [15]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[16] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[17] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [18] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [19] and [20] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [21] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:05, 17 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. ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer on Canadian television

(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. Of the sources, they are nothing but news announcements or guides, three of those are primaries and none of them assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a tv guide, Govvy (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by European artists

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

I am not convinced that this is a notable topic, and is confusing as it is 'by Europeans' but excludes the British. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are many Brits who do not see themselves as European, that's how Brexit happened... But anyway, surely this is original research and fails WP:NLIST, especially as it has no sources whatsoever. Jan Hammer might have been born in Czechoslovakia but I would assume he had obtained US citizenship by the time he made his no. 1 record, which begs the question of inclusion criteria here. I assume the British acts were excluded because there are enough of them to make their own list. But List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists has the same issues, but is even more problematic – would anyone really consider "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO or "One Dance" by Drake to be included on a list of British artists, just because of a small feature on the song by a Brit? Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable trivia. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable cross-section of attributes. A failure of WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a bit broad in scope to satisfy WP:LISTN. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it's any less notable than the article for British Artists or Australian artists. And the article is very useful, I stumbled across this discussion after specifically seeking out this article because I knew it had the relevant information I was looking for. Deletion would be an immediate hindrance for users like myself who rely on wikipedia for lists like this. N1TH Music (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone established that the British/Australian equivalent lists are notable though? Your argument seems to hinge on that unproven point... Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked them, and they're largely unsourced, so it's going to take more than a simple look at these other articles to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 6 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!} 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three valid deletes, a comment about how problematic it is, and a WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSUSEFUL keep comment, and a consensus couldn't be found Liz? I respect your opinion... but this one feels like an open and shut case, both conceptually and in practice... Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, I'm not the only closer here who patrols AFD discussions. Any other closer is free to close this discussion when they see consensus. In fact, we could use more discussion closers if you are interested in helping assessing deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I was just surprised by the relist when there were five participants, four in agreement, and zero valid keep stances given. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Desertarun (talk) 13:22, 14 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 Statistical mechanics. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of statistical mechanics articles

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

This page is not about anything. Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Wikipedia:Summary style, not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an index, which navigates articles related to a field. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped.

Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also vote Keep. Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Statistical mechanics. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is? Dream Focus 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article? Dream Focus 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics, Template:Statistical mechanics topics, and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:SELFREF, and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide. Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also changing my position to Delete or Merge, given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Right now the article is useless. That doesn't mean someone can't create something useful later on who is familiar with the topic. Dream Focus 18:04, 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.

List of mathematical theories

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This list seems aimed to list all articles having "theory" in their title. It present at the same level some wide areas of mathematics (set theory) and some very specialized method (Iwasawa theory). So, it does not contain any relevant encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is saying that WP:LSC is not satisfied in a meaningful way. Having "theory" included in the title was probably good enough in 2004, when the list page was first created. The list is hardly complete: sieve theory isn't there, for example. While mathematicians recognise as "theory" any coherent area with enough definitions, results and characteristic ideas, this kind of theory is nothing like a scientific theory. So the list may be of little or no help to non-mathematicians. I would suggest first a division by subject headings, such as "theories in topology". I mean, this is potentially a useful list, just as a list of problems or a list of theorems would be, but there should be more explanation and apparatus. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For having this article, we must have a sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory; the unsourced three lines of Mathematical theory are far to be sufficients. Moreover, in mathematics, some other words are used with a similar meaning, such as "geometry", "algebra", "calculus", and "analysis". For example, projective geometry means "projective-space theory"; commutative algebra stands for "commutative-ring theory", to be compared with ring theory, which deals with non-necessarily commutative rings; integral calculus stand for "theory of integrals"; real analysis stands for "theory of real functions". So, without a reliably sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory, this article is pure original synthesis. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a reasonable argument, but I would like to see it on Talk:List of mathematical theories because there is plenty to say. To use your examples, axiomatic set theory is a number of choices of axiomatic theory, while Iwasawa theory was originally "Iwasawa's analogue of the Jacobian", which John Coates renamed, and over the course of half a century became a major subfield of algebraic number theory, which is not an axiomatic theory so much as the study of algebraic number fields. To be really helpful, this sort of information, including the genesis of a theory, should be tabulated. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to list of mathematical theories and subfields. Such a list could have sections for eponymous theories such as Morse theory and Iwasawa theory, and for other special cases. The distinction between commutative algebra and the subfield of ring theory dealing with commutative rings is that commutative algebra is also concerned with modules over such rings. That is seen in the way the earlier name ideal theory was revised, modules over a ring being a generalisation of ideals in a ring, an innovation in the school of Emmy Noether. The list has been harmless enough for 20 years. No need to delete, when we can adjust the scope a bit. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I looked at that list, but it seems more like a category than an article. For example, wikipedia has a Category:Duality theories. --SilverMatsu (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. But it would be ok as a category. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Charles Matthews. Informative article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per those above. This would also benefit from some prefatory text describing what qualifies a topic as suitable for inclusion in the list. BD2412 T 13:06, 16 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 merge‎ to Hum Sitaray. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Sitaray

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

Tagged for notability since May 2016 and similar to this list, it does not have contextual information about the list as a whole, just individual shows. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Redirect, broadcasts reruns from its primary counterpart samee converse 06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hum Sitaray is the ideal solution here.Sameeerrr (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 7 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia

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

WP:TRIVIA. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tend to agree this is trivia. It is a grouping of concerts and locations with little importance. While certainly the exposure of Kpop to Western audiences has grown, the composite listing of a bunch of concerts isn't particularly useful.Evaders99 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and South Korea. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this is trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike the J-Pop article, I feel like this would fit better on a K-Pop Fandom or something like that. KaisaL (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:ROUTINE events. K-pop is global enough that not every instance of it outside of Asia is notable. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDB clearly random trivia with no real importantce Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary trivia. Plenty of bands perform outside of their home country. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 08:58, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook

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

Another collection of indiscriminate trivia, which falls into WP:NOTSTATS. Let'srun (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a couple of achievements (most triple-doubles, but not Best Dressed NBA player and not "set with Kevin Durant") to his article, which isn't so long that they need to be WP:SPLIT off. The rest are cherry-picked nonsense (e.g. "One of two players in NBA history to average at least 31.2 points, 9.1 rebounds and 10.3 assists in a calendar month").Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bagumba. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Changing vote to Delete after Bagumba's comments. In full agreement with Clarityfiend that the article is full of meaningless fluff like "best dressed" and an Espy Award no one cares about. "NBA achievements" is about 95% unsourced original research. Clearly created by a fan as opposed to a neutral editor. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Clarityfiend and HopalongCasualty: The career, single-season and consecutive triple-double records were already in his bio (and sourced). If there's nothing else to merge, perhaps deletion is ok?—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements already captured in the main bio, so nothing to merge. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 5 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 National Weather Service Weather forecast offices

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 4 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!} 22:37, 6 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!} 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a reasonable stand-alone list. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Solid enough for a stand-alone list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:21, 17 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NX Files characters

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

There are no sources covering these characters, let alone as a group. I think its parent article NX Files isn't notable either, so redirecting should not be considered. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nom also mentioned, I'm not finding anything to indicate that the actual NX Files itself is notable, let alone this unsourced list of characters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Martial arts, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Can't find sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NX Files (2nd nomination) for the series itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and possibly delete NX Files too. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As NX Files itself does not meet WP:GNG the characters do not either. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:35, 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!} 11:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports television composers

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

Not that all but one is entirely unsourced but WP:LISTCRUFT sums it all up. Virtually all of those bluelinked are not specific to sports broadcastings; for example, a bulk of John Williams' fame was from movie composing. Are we going to every film and TV composers who worked on the Olympics too. Are we going to list Emerson, Lake & Palmer (Fanfare for the Common Man) and Fleetwood Mac (The Chain) too? I cannot see this passing WP:NLIST too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nothing but trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to have some people who work exclusively in sports programming but there are probably many more; and it also throws in some notable composers (as mentioned by the nominator) who happened to sell a few things to sports programs but there are probably many more of those as well. Simply not a tenable list per the requirements at WP:NLIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Svartner (talk) 08:56, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia

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

WP:TRIVIA ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, per below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Japan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow... that's a huge body of work. The list feels strongly in WP:NOT territory. The lede is irrelevant to the topic of concerts, and the list thus lacks an explanation of why this is a relevant list. It's certainly not because such concerts are rare. The listed concerts are certainly vastly different in size too. Also, if the idea is to handle Japanese penetration of other music markets, why limit it to J-pop and exclude J-rock, metal etc.? Why even limit it to non-Asian countries, seeing as a concert in Lebanon would be just as "exotic" as one in Cyprus? Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys! Just to point out that, although the name of the list "List of J-pop concerts held outside Asia", it lists concerts by bands of any music style, such as j-rock and metal. As to why limit to non-Asian countries, I do not know why, but I did contribute substantially to the article and I feel it is important to have records of the outreach of these bands. Maybe it's just the fan in me and I'm overstepping WP boundaries. Macacaosapao (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm indifferent to whether the article should be kept or deleted (though the latter would save me a buttload of work), but I'd like to point out there is a similar article titled List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, for which this discussion should also apply.DragonFury (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also generally unsure because essentially this is genuinely useful information somebody might choose to look up, and policy sometimes doesn't cover that. At the same time, while the older data is useful, the globalisation of music and the fact it's seemingly becoming a list of Babymetal dates makes it feel less important now. The information should at the very minimum be preserved. KaisaL (talk)
Delete - a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of WP:ROUTINE events. J-pop etc. is global enough that not every instance of it outside of Asia is notable. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jonathan Deamer too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary trivia. Plenty of bands perform outside of their home country. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far-fetched topic by my and others' reasoning above. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 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.

List of movie theaters

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 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!} 11:00, 6 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!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas: LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas. // Timothy :: talk 14:10, 14 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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) (Request made at Meta for Big Delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a case of WP:NOTDIR. The most recent AfD closed as no consensus but several of the keep arguments were effectively arguing WP:USEFUL, which is not an appropriate deletion argument. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTDIR. However "useful" it is, the IMAX website that is the source for the vast majority of entries is more so, not to mention more accurate. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [[WP:NOTDIR]] and doesn't fundamentally improve the article (or wiki as a whole) Lostsandwich (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Orientls (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per my vote in the previous nomination. Having Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [[WP:NOTDIR]]. At the time of the first two AfDs the two valid arguments for keeping the article were rarity and notability. Since the advent of IMAX Digital and other PLF screens this is no longer the case. Barry Wom (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIR. Conyo14 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps refocus and rewrite as List of 15/70 IMAX venues or something under a similar title? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR. Also, what about my cinema that claims to be an IMAX venue or the ones of many 'pseudo IMAX VENUES', hence the issues we have with this list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 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 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Dhaka

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad also applies here; very similar article with the same issues. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In complete agreement with the nominator and previous voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 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. Star Mississippi 15:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Madras

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. The only sourced entry has its own page with a very questionable notability. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad also applies here; very similar article with the same issues. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is based on a newspaper feature that mentioned a whopping six songs, and apparently someone thought that was interesting enough to type a bare list of titles into Wikipedia. But it is not a viable list of encyclopedic items per WP:NLIST, and it is just plain uninformative for any reader who happens to come across it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:39, 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.

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters

(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) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [22], [23], [24], [25]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [26], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.

PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing in article shows this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Keep votes above found nothing that meets NLIST and are ILIKEIT votes, and the article does not serve any navigation purpose. If anyone finds independent sources meeting NLIST, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 13:42, 14 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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Campeonato Brasileiro Série A broadcasters

(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) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Brazil. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this topic meets the guidelines. C 679 09:47, 5 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 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative names for oceans

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like most exonym lists. An article about different etymologies of names for the respective oceans could be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 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 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. ✗plicit 00:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 28 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!} 06:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and no evidence it meets any criteria suggested at WP:LISTN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 7 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. ✗plicit 00:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeira Liga broadcasters

(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 announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 5 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 14:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football broadcast in India

(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 announcements 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) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There are some sources at the article AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing significant that I can see... Giant Snowman 16:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are sources. What do they do other than indicate those are evidences they are providing coverages to sports leagues? Are they helping with the subject's notability? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide for viewers. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [27].Esolo5002 (talk) 18:46, 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 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. ✗plicit 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters

(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 announcments and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 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!} 16:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Superliga broadcasters

(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 is primary 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) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Denmark. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 17:15, 5 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!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman

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

Another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Dennis Rodman § NBA career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 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. If you believe these articles should be "Kept" then please state this along with your argument instead of making a general "Comment". Comments are ambiguous and don't give a closer a clear idea on where you stand on what should happen with this particular article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett

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

This is a WP:NOTSTATS violation, which has also been tagged for verification since 2011. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And for reference, there's recent golf player's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. Less related but still relevant to the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But someone will possibly make the assertion that every single career achievement page (across all sports) should be deleted (already happened in previous AfD discussions). Before they go there, they should consider Nicklaus' AfD result. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Career achievements of sportspeople shows that 18 racing drivers have their own career achievements page. Is WP:TOOBIG the reason why? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles make a little bit more sense in racing sports and golf, which have lots of discrete named events. From a maintenance perspective, they're easier to manage. Many of the achievements listed in NBA articles are cumulative stats and career rankings that are continuously subject to change. Zagalejo (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, trivial statistics. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the bio, which it already does in its main prose and via tables and lists at Kevin Garnett § NBA career statistics and Kevin Garnett § Achievements and records. The rest here fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012

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

This is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:

* the 2015 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Radio 4 is a single UK radio, Book of the Week is one program on the radio station. So we're into a very small audience before asking who would be looking for this list? The answer being nobody. So the nom is correct this information isn't encyclopedic. And its unreferenced because nobody would ever care to talk about the topic in reliable third party media. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of em. Redundant lists with no encyclopedic value. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. X (talk) 23:39, 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. Star Mississippi 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rogue security software

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable entries to justify a list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 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]

~~Keep~~Delete- 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]

Delete: as per WP:NOTDATABASE and because many of these entries do not have an article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:59, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Kosovo. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Poland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Argentina. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and New Zealand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 26 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 22:16, 29 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 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 [28], [29], as well as [30] and to some extent [31].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

(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. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Czech Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 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]

Merge to Czech First League as WP:ATD. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage. FromCzech (talk) 05:46, 6 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]

Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage per WP:ATD as a plausible-ish search term. Ironically, that sub-section has more detail than the stand-alone article on the subject. It could do with some sourcing, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree with redirect as WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage. Unsourced list contains two rwos, Unneeded CFORK. Fails NLIST, no sources showing this has been discussed as a group by reliable sources. Nothing sourced, nothing to merge. // Timothy :: talk 18:26, 12 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Switzerland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 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]

Delete - similar case to List of Serie A broadcasters and List of Bundesliga broadcasters. No justification for a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional information has been added that may help determine notability.--Claudio Fernag (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:46, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Algeria. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 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 La Liga broadcasters

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a tv guide.. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability.[32], [33], [34]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 3 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!} 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources.Puente aereo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and necessary article, its sources are the best PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:03, 9 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]
Keep article has been substantially expanded since nomination and is no longer a mere channel listing. Pinguinn 🐧 21:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More information that gives notability has been added and also more sources [35] GNG is well passed--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You voted this twice already. Are you really this desparate? SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:21, 17 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Italy. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 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. Giant Snowman 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Turkey. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST, fails NOTTVGUIDE, fails CLN. Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 28 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this needs to be created. Several character creations also show that all of those aren't reliable also and have been sourced primarily. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: This article wre under copyright law. Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UNO REVERSE. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:13, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Kazakhstan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the names are redlinks and these topics do not show any signs of notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be a pain to continually update as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 26 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Can't agree that this is made up by the synthesis of sources, as most of the list-type article exists similar way. As the author, I do agree that it appears in an abnormal way, and that can be overcome by copyediting. The idea of the article indeed notable.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent per WP:ATD; that page is over 12,600 words already, so any merge would be unhelpful for page length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in article and child articles show this subject has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST and it serves a navigation purpose for readers meeting WP:CLN. A merge would not improve either the content here or the target. I think this is an appropriate SUMMARYSTYLE split from Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. If there are issues with the content, they can be cleaned up on the article talk page; any POV issues can be handled with cn and fv tags rather than afd. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 2 May 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]

Delete Pure trivia, xenophobic and full of WP:OR. I am sure we are not creating a List of Indian Kingdoms regained by Indians after Muslim conquests. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 10:25, 3 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 or redirect. The concept of the page is based on WP:OR. What really constitutes as "Muslim conquests"? Was religious motive really involved in all these conquests? Is it really correct to generalize that whole period as the period of "Muslim conquests"? I don't think so. Suggested title change won't address it. CharlesWain (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant but asking if the same could be applied on Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent? I've asked about such naming in the talk section of Talk:List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none was interested to involve in it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:31, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, Lists, France, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:BOLD redirect it to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or redirect to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Svartner (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as collection of random information, and also purge the template "List of association football clubs in Oceania". Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Wallis and Futuna as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 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 keep‎. There is a consensus that the topic passes the WP:NLIST criteria. "Merge" was suggested as an alternative to deletion by some editors, but that included a couple of editors whose primary choice was "Keep." — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

(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]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. 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]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 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!} 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. 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]
Keep Topic is clearly noteworthy per Translating The Lord of the Rings and meets WP:NLIST. The list is too big to be merged into the main article. – SD0001 (talk) 13:37, 15 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 no consensus‎. There seems to be some agreement that there's unnecessary duplication between the various articles listing equipment, but no consensus as to which should be the primary article for this list, with at least three different pages proposed here. Discussion on a selective merger should continue on the respective article Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish military aircraft

(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]

Keep This article is longer and has pictures. So against redirecting it there. Also there are over a hundred articles like this. Category:Lists_of_military_aircraft. Dream Focus 04:00, 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]

Keep. This topic is different the other ones and therefore, this isn't a WP:CFORK. It would correspond to other articles that Fabrice Ram cited, like List of active Russian military aircraft. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 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]

Merge to this list
- (preferred) either just List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft (Polish Land Forces#Aircraft doesn't exist) and Polish Navy#Aircraft, since they're subsidiary elements of those branches, and have a hatnote pointing to Polish Air Force#Aircraft, or
- all three to here. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 9 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 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds from India

(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: [36] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets CLN as a useful Wikipedia navigation list. As for duplicate arg, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. Wikipedia navigation lists do not need to pass NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 06:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar navigational lists were deleted in the past. As to WP:NOTDUP, doesn't this just make one page redundant if you have two doing the same thing? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Timothy. Navigational lists are useful and do not need to pass NLIST. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:22, 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 Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Lists, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BoBoiBoy seems to cover this. The template for it can be edited to add in the few things missing. Dream Focus 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a catalog of a particular company's products and I have added more sources. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 08:22, 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!} 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]
Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Lorstaking (talk) 09:22, 13 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 no consensus‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola seasons

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Angola, and Lists. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't you include everything linked to? Category:Girabola seasons Dream Focus 11:15, 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. Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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! Giant Snowman 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... Giant Snowman 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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... Giant Snowman 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. Giant Snowman 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand

(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.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [47], [48], and [49], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 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. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

(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:

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 [50] [51] [52], 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.

Proposed deletions

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Lists==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WNBA Finals broadcasters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Awards broadcasters}}