Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

WP:DSLIST

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

2030 in sports

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

Declined PROD. Page was created too soon. List is completely unsourced and contains only one single entry. Almost eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A3. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a complete list and way too soon. I agree this could be speedy deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I added events from Category:2030 in sports, which brought it up to eight entries. At the very least it's definitely not eligible for speedy deletion anymore. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Lorstaking (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Procyon117 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely WP:TOOSOON. This page won't have use for at least another couple of years. Beachweak (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should stamp out the perceived need to create articles more than half a decade ahead of its time. Wikipedia does not hold a contest for fastest creation of articles. More articles on future or even current events need to develop in draft space first, that what is the case today. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minecraft characters

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

This is a fork of content on the main Minecraft article that doesn't warrant its own article. The bulk of this article is a Fandom-style listing of all of the mobs in Minecraft - the kind of thing that Wikipedia avoids being (unless it has good reason). It's a list of game mechanics that isn't (and can't be) written in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't discussed together in secondary, reliable sources. There are few notable topics here - namely Steve, Creeper, and Herobrine, which already have their own articles. But the rest just lists parts of the game.

Anyway, I argue this article does not warrant a Wikipedia article because it fails the notability of lists. Its content is adequately covered in the main Minecraft article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Entertainment, Popular culture, and Lists. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator says, these mobs are not really distinct "characters" and are more or less gameplay elements with little notability attached to their names. This list isn't really warranted, and is better off removed for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a "list of characters" so much as a list of enemies, i.e. gamecrufty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of acids by Hammett acidity

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

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Friends villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Super Friends article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters - Not only is this current list lacking in any reliable, secondary sources, many of the listed characters are minor antagonists that appeared in a single episode or comic book issue. The current article already lists the villains, with appropriate blue links to those that are notable. It should also be noted that the Legion of Doom also has its own article that covers a lot of the same information on many of the reoccurring villains in the series. So, between the information there and on the main Super Friends article, this is a needless spinout mostly being used to include excessive plot details on minor one-shot character appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters agree that there is no reason for this to be a separate article when the information is already included on the main Super Friends page. Rhino131 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters. There is definitely no need for this extensive list. It does not fit WP:NLIST, plus it already feels forked from the characters list. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Illinois tornado history

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois tornadoes. This is a list, not an article on tornado history in southern Illinois. I'm interested in expanding the tornado history of Northern Illinois, which I find much more interesting, but this is better done creating standalone articles including on individual tornadoes, outbreaks, and "Tornadoes of YYYY" expansions. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois tornadoes. Azuredivay (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Spiritism

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

the timeline is not notable, and it is not supported by significant reliable sources Drew Stanley (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to exist. Yes to a category and yes to a History of spiritualism article. I would not oppose a move. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, if you are okay with an article move, it sounds like you are open to Keeping this article under a different page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of JD Vance

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

Premature page splitting for a topic that is not mature enough to have long-term notability under WP:LISTN. Generally, a politician should not have a separate electoral history article until they've been through a few cycles with substantial analysis between performances. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists, and Ohio. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per nom Andre🚐 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A separate page is not needed for someone who has only been in two elections. Reywas92^Talk 05:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stand alone list, so WP:LISTN does not apply. I don't see any harm with having this as a seperate page, but for now it doesn't seem like we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates information already on his main article. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article as a plausible search target. S5A-0043^Talk 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main page, per nom. and others. WP:TOOSOON for a separate page. Sal2100 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article for now. There is not a sufficient amount of content to warrant a separate page. desmay (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyoncé pop culture references

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

Taking this to AFD since a PROD was contested. The page appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE when bloated with lots of trivia and minor mentions of Beyoncé. We're not supposed to be a repository of whenever someone simply alludes to a celebrity or explicitly brings up their name, so I recommend deletion. That simply is a collection of fancruft. It also doesn't help that the list is full of inappropriate POV and tone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary collection of trivia. Not everything should be listed in this encyclopedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Its notable entries, if any, could be merged to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thoroughly enjoyed researching to make this page (and I have to give thanks to the countless others who contributed and made tweaks), but the opposition (instead of constructive advice or actual editing) at every turn got annoying and you guys simply cannot make up your minds. This page actually began as part of the page Cultural impact of Beyoncé, but was recommended to be spun off in another discussion. Here we are again. I know I will see a similar "repository" in a few months' time for some other artist with none of the opposition, and the same users commenting here will be willing to work or provide advice to improve POV and tone there instead of merely complaining about it. C'est la vie. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the effort of page's creator to collect info and sort it. However, I also agree this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category would be useful. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Television, Advertising, Popular culture, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Strong oppose to outright deletion, per WP:ATD-R. There is no need to nuke this, some content might be useful for the target. Ping Apoxyomenus - you may want to reconsider delete vs redirect here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsskyscrapers @Bluesatellite I actually meant to ping only Train... but why not, everyone, this does not need to be TNTed out of history. Redirecting is exactly what is needed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any point in that when few if any of the listings are even worth mentioning there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Gabba

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

WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that this is a notable list topic. While it is verifiable, there are very few sources who pay attention to which stadiums have hosted which centuries, normally the interest is in which player/team made centuries, not where. See also these related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4 Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS and existing consensus that these lists are not notable. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom
Shrug02 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. Easily found on ESPNCricinfo statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passes WP:NLIST, with nearly 150 centuries and there are coverage on independent sources, they just haven't been added to the page. It's a case of WP:NEXIST. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaus

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

Several of WP policies are in question here:

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" -- this list has many neologisms, and most entries, while intuitive in their derivation, do not or cannot have reliable sources. A good many of the links point to wiktionary, which is not a reliable source in itself.
The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear. There is extensive debate here, here and here. Without a clear definition and consensus, the debate of what to include is constant.
The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmanageably long with marginal added value: neologisms that are not used beyond the initial introduction, company/brand names, multiple spins on Reaganomics and Brexit, geographic locations (which has its own article with similar sourcing issues), for example.
The list is barely encyclopedic. It feels more suitable as a project for linguists (again, still debating the definition) or within a dictionary. A few examples in the parent article(s) are all that is needed to make the point for encyclopedic purposes. While many of the entries here are interesting for "so that's where the term comes from" reasons, collecting them on a single page here does not seem to meet WP's objectives, and collecting them all is not practical or possible. HalJor (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" - sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?

"The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear" - it has two definitions, the usual meaning ("portmanteau word", or blend, the subject of this list and the linked article) and "portmanteau morph".

"The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT" - if it's too long then remove any without sources.

"The list is barely encyclopedic" - Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.

I was thinking "Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this should be deleted or redirected to the Wiktionary category, after the references that support an entry in the list are moved to the relevant Wiktionary pages", but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Keep. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?" Quite a few are dubious. e.g. "flounder" links here which says "First recorded in 1570–80; perhaps blend of flounce and founder" (inconclusive) and here which adds "or perhaps symbolic, fl- frequently beginning words connected with swift or sudden movement". Also e.g. "sedge" references this which says "First recorded before 900; Middle English segge, Old English secg; akin to saw 1; presumably so named from its sawlike edges" which is similarly inconclusive but doesn't mention the blend. These are just the first two examples I checked in response here. HalJor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there..." That guideline also notes "the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited" which comes back to one of the earlier points in this nomination. It is far easier to cite a reliable source for the existence of a word (and its spelling) than the definitive etymology of the word (which doesn't always exist beyond being intuitive/OR). The Q-U list is also prone to be far less dynamic than the one under debate here, raising the maintainability concern. HalJor (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "sedge" was unlikely and removed it after checking the source, that's why I added "that support an entry in the list". Maintainability is no more of a concern here than in any other article that has content added without sources. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary already has wikt:Category:English blends (which is already linked from the Portmanteau article), a much more comprehensive list (with almost 7500 (!) entries), and actually suited to a dictionary. It's also worth noting that the current article should probably have been named "English portmanteaus" instead, since it only seems to cover those, but that's beside the point now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT is as valid here as for List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the example in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more valid here because this is a bare list without any encyclopedic content...any such background content can and already does exist at the main article on blend words, rendering this unnecessary. As already pointed out, the Wiktionary category already contains ~7500 entries (and that doesn't include all the company names and stuff), rendering this pretty unmanageable. It's also got generally ambiguous inclusion criteria, since what constitutes a blend word is somewhat subjective. The comparison between the two cases isn't particularly appropriate, which is why articles should be judged on their own merits. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The definition of "portmanteau" seems WP:OBVIOUS to me, but any confusion can be cleared up here by Merriem-Webster. Portmanteaus and blends are synonymous terms. Also, with 871,806 pageviews and 252 daily views, the article has to be providing some kind of value that merits inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something with an "obvious" definition, there are countless edge cases, along with plenty of words with uncertain/theoretical etymologies. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an interesting essay, but in no way does it define official policy or guidelines. As I was saying before, most of these "uncertain/theoretical etymologies" appear to be quite WP:OBVIOUS to the average English-speaking reader. Enix150 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking WP:OBVIOUS for some reason, but that's part of an essay about writing better articles, and it talks about including enough, but not too much detail to provide context to readers who might not otherwise know about it. This has absolutely no bearing on the article in question, which is whether or not this is a list that warrants an article (hint: it isn't). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed two bad entries. Any without their own dedicated article, or enough coverage in a different article, should be removed. Dream Focus 13:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave no actual rationale behind your "keep" vote, nor have you addressed the specific concerned raised in the nomination or further on in the discussion. Further, you haven't explained why things as disparate as animals, companies, random objects, etc etc, should be grouped in the same list merely because their name shares some superficial linguistic characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything listed has its own article, its a valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, because having an index of articles based on a superficial characteristic of the words used to represent any underlying concepts is not a valid navigational purpose. We'd no more have a full alphabetical listing of all the articles on Wikipedia (which would actually be more useful). This is not a valid keep rationale. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria for inclusion are clear. The list is not complete, but this is not a valid reason for deletion. Overall, having a list of such examples seems to be helpful for a reader who does not know much about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDICT. Specifically, since Wikipedia articles are organized based on concepts and not the words used to name those concepts, indexing articles by some quality of the words used to name them is out of scope. In addition, per WP:LISTCRITERIA, editors should not "synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." In other words, unless reliable sources discuss e.g. Hvaldimir, leopon, and crocoduck as members of a coherent category of things, Wikipedia should not imply that such a category exists. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course RS discuss portmanteau words as a concept. And since we have a big page about portmanteau words, having such a list as a supplement seems to be reasonable. We have many lists that illustrate concepts, there is nothing wrong with this. This page is not a dictionary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's the rub. Sources from fields such as linguistics discuss blend words as words. In linguistics and allied fields, words are a concept of interest. Compare this to e.g. List of mammal genera: plenty of reliable sources in biology discuss mammals as animals. I don't know of any sources, however, that discuss e.g. animals with blend-word names as animals, nor food with blend-word names as a style of cuisine, nor political movements with blended names as a political philosophy, etc. In fields such as biology, cooking, or politics, word formation is not usually a concept of interest. The grouping in this article is based on labels rather than concepts (NOTDICT) and created by Wikipedians (WP:SYNTH). Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a clearly notable list, the topic being discussed as a set in numerous sources (ranging from articles like https://www.nationalworld.com/news/offbeat/14-portmanteaus-words-and-their-meanings-such-as-brexit-netflix-podcast-pokemon-and-metaverse-4107705 to books like Stone, L. (2015). Language for Life: Where Linguistics Meets Teaching. Taylor & Francis;Goddard, C. (2018). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic MetaLanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. or Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending (see In particular the article "Portmanteaus as general templates" (2012). De Gruyter Mouton. and so on), easily available online for those who don't have a library. -Mushy Yank. 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lörrach

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

A small city in Germany with zero skyscrapers (defined as a building taller than 100m) and none planned. Similar case to List of tallest buildings in Gwalior, List of tallest buildings in Bradenton, Florida and List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia and many, many other AfDs that we have had over the last few years on similarly non-notable lists of buildings in cities where none of the buildings are actually that tall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points for consideration:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as all of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. For that matter, I don't think it meets any of the 3 purposes at WP:LISTPURP.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Individual news articles about a handful of the individual buildings in this city do not automatically make an article about the heights of all of the buildings in that city a notable topic.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Lörrach' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in Germany nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building simply being more than 40m tall makes it notable. It's an incredibly low bar. Can you imagine the reaction if we set the bar so low on a similar list for Tokyo or Chicago? There would be literally thousands of towers in those lists.
The topic is already covered more than adequately at List of tallest buildings in Germany and List of tallest buildings by German federal state, so this list is redundant. Yes, I am aware that none of the buildings in Lörrach are actually tall enough to be in either of those lists but that, if anything, speaks for just how non-notable this topic is! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no notability whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more recently we have deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Daegu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Lucknow (2nd nomination) with clear consensus. In my view, Lucknow and Daegu are much more prominent cities than Lörrach on a global scale so I don't see any precedence for having one on Lörrach. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ample precedent. What with the disappearance of the Emporis lists it's not even clear that these are the tallest buildings in the city, but even so these are on the short side even compared to the many other places whose lists have been deleted in the past. Mangoe (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this list fails WP:NLIST. The skyline is so small that this list includes every single building above 40 meters. Incidentally, that is a very, very low bar to clear (in NYC, where I'm from, a 40-meter building wouldn't make the top 1,000 tallest buildings). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The most important German cities are already represented. I would also have created a list for Eschborn, which has slightly larger buildings but is a similarly small city to Lörrach. I'd better leave it. Klausk2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I would agree that the German cities worth writing these lists about all seem to be covered already. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes

AfDs for this article:

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

Two years on, and every issue from the first round is still here. Again, the information from here does not agree with the list in Sectional center facility, and the latter information is correct, and this is not. Last time I pointed out that 207 was wrong, and yes, it's different, but it's still wrong: 207 has nothing to do with Silver Spring, and the actual name of the SCF is "Southern Maryland". It still doesn't step up to the issue that many SCFs serve zip codes in multiple states. If someone wants to make the listing in the SCF article into a table, I'd be fine with that, and this could be redirected there. But as it is, this is a magnet for misinformation and needs to cease to exist as it stands, and it should not be merged into the other article, because it is mostly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can't exactly verify the misinformation, not that that's truly a reason for deletion, but I'll just say that WP:NLIST is not met for the prefixes specifically. The rock solid source from last time is a primary source and doesn't count towards independence. However, I am willing to change my !vote if there are sources that say otherwise, or if there is a case that shows how a list of zip codes would be easier in this format than showing all 41,704 zip codes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, deletion looks likely, but given that this is the 2nd nomination, even a little more discussion would help make sure this is settled.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You can fix if you want. 176.104.104.194 (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to fix it, I'd redirect this to the list in the SCF article and maybe table-ize it. We don't need to contradictory copies of the information. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics

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

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two different rationales for deletion; that these are original research, and that there isn't coverage of this type of world record. The continental lists are also incomplete. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the World list, it's officially maintained by Athletics Weekly here: "World Under 23 Best Performances" That list is outdated, but GBR Athletics was acquired by Athletics Weekly a few years ago and their records went under the AW paywall, so I think that's where the most recent list would be. World Athletics also makes references to "world under-23 bests" in their writing e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] "Kirdyapkina, the wife of Sergey the reigning and two-time World 50km champion, was rewarded with a World U23 best", so I think they must maintain or reference some authoritative list otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to times that way. --Habst (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval on the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of world under-23 bests in athletics per explanation of Habst. – Editør (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pre-nominal letters (Sweden)

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

No sign of Notability. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page by copying entries from Lists of post-nominal letters#Sweden where they were cluttering a list of lists. Other lists of post-nominal letters are deemed notable, and this page is essentially no different from any of them. To quote essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". The page does require improvement though. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For one, I don't think these "titles" are ever used when referring to a person's name in Sweden. Furthermore it is not really encyclopedic information – it is rather a key to reading old biographical dictionaries where these abbreviations are used (for conciseness). The page therefore fails the policy WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOW. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a key to every way that one country lists honors. If this were a list of ranks in the military or parliament, it would make sense, but this doesn't. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Mostly a procedural keep, since I believe that all similar articles should be considered at the same time. Sjö (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic settlement units in Brno

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

This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are usually by county, state or country, so this could be made into a list of places (or statistical or administrative units) in the South Moravian Region or there could be separate pages for each district, including Brno-City District. Peter James (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and New York. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This 1914 book about the history of the college does go into the history of the fraternities at the school. College publications marketed to perspective college students feature the Greek life aspect of the school prominently: [5], [6], etc. Occasionally, the school gets mentions in academic studies on Greek Life like [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], Greek life is clearly an important part of this school's campus experience.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.

Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 8 December 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, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been no adequate reason for this being relisted when the responses (even when not bolded) have been for keep giving guideline-based reasons and the nomination itself being vacuous. We should not treat low quality nominations as having credibility. Thincat (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Thincat that the nomination is vacuous. This is a solid article, with solid secondary sources and more available as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Deletion for the sake of Deletion is harmful to Wikipedia's mission. In this case, the rationale for deletion is so thin that it is absurd. Jax MN (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

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

This article has been around since 2013, yet makes no claim of notability for any of the songs. The only reference is a book called "...130 Popular Songs...", which appears to be just a book of song lyrics, so it does not appear useful as a reliable source. There are a dozen more articles in this set. This article and its siblings appear to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or one of the other guidelines on that page. I suspect that List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi could be kept if some reliable sources were added, but the alphabetical directory pages should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 14 other articles of this form should be bundled with this nomination; I shall do so now. There are no sources that suggest this level of detail is encyclopedic in nature; perhaps @Jax 0677: can explain why these database-detailed articles are notable. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I split List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi because it was very long. I will not be upset if this page and others like it no longer exist, but I do suggest redirecting to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi with history in tact so long as that page exists. If that page no longer exists, then I suggest redirecting to Mohammed Rafi with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having recorded thousands of songs in multiple languages, this database cannot be entertained here. Lorstaking (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this is such a large bundled nomination, I want to make sure we have a solid consensus on what should be done with these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The songs do not require this level of detail, maybe they can be sorted into a single article. Xoocit (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we MUST trim the articles before we merge them. That was the whole point of the split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xoocit, is the Merge target article you are suggesting List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi? Please identify a target article whenever you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I don't see a consensus. I'll carry out the consensus but I question the value of having these 14 pages as Redirects to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi since they are unlikely search terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

U.S. Automobile Production Figures (via WP:PROD)