Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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.


Purge page cache watch


See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Lists

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of lens rehousing service providers

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

Can't find many sources I would catagorize as reliable listing the options. No subjects have articles. Seems to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Lens rehousing is a niche but established part of the cinematography industry. This list provides a helpful reference for filmmakers, collectors, and technicians. While it's true that many of the companies listed do not have standalone Wikipedia articles, that doesn't mean the field lacks relevance or value.
The problem is nowadays most real discussions and insights about these services happen in social media groups, video reviews, and closed communities. Reliable third-party coverage in traditional formats like newspapers or books is rare for niche technical services like this. At the same time, linking to Facebook groups, X posts, or YouTube videos wouldn't be appropriate either, since those are not considered reliable sources under Wikipedia policy.
Instead of deleting the page, it would be better to improve it. Au8ust (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm aware the page currently looks like a bare list, so the directory concern is fair. Still, lens rehousing is a recognised service in professional cinematography, and there are independent trade sources that mention it, for example American Cinematographer, Cinematography World, Newsshooter, and No Film School. These may not be mainstream newspapers, yet they are edited publications that meet the usual reliability standard for technical industry topics. A short overview plus those references could turn the list into a proper article and give future editors a ready base to build on.
Some might say a Wikipedia entry does not make a topic notable. I agree. Notability comes from outside coverage, not from the page itself. The value of keeping a sourced list is that it points editors and researchers to the existing coverage in one place, rather than letting that information scatter every time the subject comes up. Deleting the list would remove a helpful signpost and make it harder for anyone who wants to expand on the topic in the future.
Since most voices here favour deletion and I do not edit Wikipedia often, so if consensus remains delete I'm fine with that. I only wish to record that removing small, sourced starter pages like this can make it even tougher for niche technical subjects to gain proper coverage later on. - Au8ust (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am nom. I only wish to record that removing small, sourced starter pages like this can make it even tougher for niche technical subjects to gain proper coverage later on. If you are suggesting that the lack of this article will prevent RS from covering this in the future, I disagree, and even if this was true that wouldn't be a good reason for wikipedia to cover it (see WP:LOH). If you are saying that the lack of this article will prevent other lens rehousing articles onwiki, I'd say (without looking into it) that the better move would be to first clear AfC with the "lens rehousing" base article instead of doing the list first, that order makes more sense (the sources you mention seem more geared towards proving "lens rehousing" notable, not the list of providers). (I understand you've had difficulty with that article, but I was uninvolved in that so I cannot deem if the issues other editors raised were fixable or if the topic is fundimentally not notable). Thank you for your efforts to improve coverage of this niche in any regard. It is a noble goal, and believe me when I say I've been in your position with AfD as well, and I know how frustrating it is. I hope you'll stick around on Wikipedia. If I may, I suggest edit cinematography articles that already are established as reliable to get your bearings.
With Love, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 19:37, 21 May 2025 (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 02:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives

List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only uses a source from one publication, and therefore appears to fail WP:LISTN. The list is naturally leaning towards whatever that single publication and 2 authors believe is derisive and does not encompass a global viewpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - because IDONTLIKEIT and you shouldn’t either. Let’s call this what it is - a list of offensive ethnic slurs. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is an attack page that violates our no attack pages policy. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't think it's anything close to an "attack page". It lists everything without using POV language, and most of them aren't even "slurs" (like Mexican standoff, a widely-used term). My issue is both a lack of notability as well as a clear disconnect between title and actual content, because "not liking it" is not a reason to delete things and I don't want people to get the idea that is what motivates the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised you don't find "Mexican standoff" to be a problematic reference to Mexicans. As my good friend Perplexity summarized it:
    • In its first iteration in the 1840s, the term "Mexican standoff" described "the tendency of Mexican bandits to run away from a fair fight". This original meaning directly associated Mexicans with cowardice, creating a derogatory ethnic stereotype....[1][2]
    • "There certainly isn't anything 'Mexican' about a Mexican standoff" The arbitrariness of attaching a nationality to this concept is part of what makes it problematic. To illustrate this point, one commenter suggests: "Let's call it a US standoff and give it the same definition to see how people of United States origin feel"
    Just because it's common usage (cf. "to gyp someone", "Mexican overdrive", "Dutch courage") doesn't mean it isn't derisive. --Macrakis (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't believe this has lasted so long, clearly not a notable topic with indiscriminate combination of unrelated place and ethnic terms. I've never heard of nearly any of these, only used in the 60s apparently. Reywas92Talk 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it needs pruning. --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TNT and poor sourcing. It's possible that a good article could be written, or a good list created, of euphemisms or even insults using names of places and nationalities. There are many with solid history and usage, such as Welsh rabbit. But this list is not the good article. To be a good article, we need to summarise multiple sources. The current list-article is merely a regurgitation of what amounts to a single source (albeit published in two episodes). It's of no encyclopedic value to the reader because it's an indiscriminate hodge-podge of things no one has said in a century alongside things that are used every day, without any distinction. To be clear: racist slurs from history are of huge significance and should be recorded, but to be useful to our reader, we need to make clear who used them, when, why, and describe their historical context and development. The article doesn't even define the scope of "derisive" clearly enough to avoid becoming merely a list of things where a nationality or place name is used in a way that isn't descriptive of nationality or place. For example, when people refer to a French kiss, are they really deriding France? Were they ever? This article is a mess, and best deleted. If anyone wishes to revisit the subject, there is nothing here that will help them. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the article desperately needs improvement. Your contributions are welcome! And perhaps it should become more analytical, not just a list: Ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives (not "list of"). --Macrakis (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as above, also has no mainspace links except for a redirect from one item in the list Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The terms existing make the terms offensive. However, the fact they exist don't make this an attack page. What it does though is create a list of dictionary terms which we are not.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this page 8 years ago. It is absolutely not an "attack page", and studying offensive ethnic slurs certainly does qualify as encyclopedic -- they have been studied by Eric Partridge in A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, A. A. Roback[3] (Roback, who was Jewish, was especially interested in anti-Semitic slurs), and many others [4][5]. I created it because I wanted to give context to the term "Welsh rabbit", along with the discussion at Culinary_name#Humor and ethnic dysphemism, which by the way has 17 sources, both about individual terms and about the topic in general. The page does not promote the use of these slurs. In fact, quite the opposite, it helps people recognize that some familiar phrases are derisive. Some of them don't really seem like slurs at all, like "Detroit iron", and we should remove them. That said, I don't like the current format of the page, which is just a list, and I don't like the fact that it has basically one source. Both of those are fixable and frankly I had hoped that the community would pitch in once I'd seeded the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a list of adjectives with little to no context and some vague definitions. I am not sure how this could become encyclopedic, even with cleanup. Many more pages about the actual terms would need to be written to make this useful as a navigational list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (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. Consensus is that this and similar lists should be kept but that they do likely need cleanup. Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this meets WP:NLIST, not clear that any other reliable source has paid attention to a grouping of these different levels of politicial entities, seems rather random. Also seems in many parts incorrect, many of these are apparently neither continents, countries, nor first level subdivisions (e.g. Røsvatnet or Gil Island (Canada) or Replot). Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists. Deleting this will just leave a hole of this size in the middle of the lists into which it is transcluded. Of course, listing of geographic features by size is very well-established, and this specific division is just a convenient subset of the entire list. With respect to the concern that there are items on the list that should not be there, feel free to remove those. There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities. There are more than enough countries and first level subdivisions to fill up the list. BD2412 T 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists." No, this is an article. Whether another list transcludes this or not is an issue for that list, not for AfD. This article here and now is directly readable by readers, it is categorized, it should meet our criteria for an article. "listing of geographic features by size is very well-established" across some randomly decided characteristics? I don't think so. A list of countries by size is not a problem and wouldn't be at AfD, what is at AfD (and can't be helped by cleanup) is this combination of (officially) continents, countries, and "first level subdivisions", and (in practice) everything else that someone wants to add (and that apparently not only pollutes not just this page then, but also all these other pages this is transcluded onto). Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention? Fram (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My understanding is that article splits made on the basis of size do not incur extra responsibility on the resultant pages that the splitting points themselves be based on WP:N. That is to say, if we have a List of bumberchute pratfalls, and it is split into List of bumberchute pratfalls (1700–1900) and List of bumberchute pratfalls (1900–present), this does not ipso facto create a new requirement that we find a bunch of historians who specifically divide bumberchute pratfalls into a pre-1900 and post-1900 era. jp×g🗯️ 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your reply has nothing to do with my comment it seems, which was not about where to split (or even to split at all): "Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention?" The three levels are "continents, countries, and first level subdivisions" from all over the world, and no matter how large or small. Fram (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities That seems to be the case for a substantial amount of this list, though, there are a lot of Canadian islands here, and the two lists below have nearly 300 Scottish islands. These lists could be more meaningful if they don't attempt to – yet obviously fail badly – be so comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reywas92: If there is not an objection to listing countries and their states/provinces, then removing the smaller islands is a cleanup task. The larger islands tend to be their own administrative divisions. BD2412 T 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe this meets the criteria for a speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP is not a speedy keep criterion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can read it as a "strong keep", then, but if a subset of a an uncontested series of lists is deleted because that subset is deemed not individually notable, then it would pretty much automatically be merged up to the larger list, which has not been nominated for deletion here. That would just be clean up and merge. BD2412 T 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added these two because their Prod was removed, and for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 50 square kilometers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete (all). This is such a random WP:CROSSCAT of things, that it's difficult to tell what should even be included or excluded. I see some silly micronation on the small end, as well as a department of France, which appears to be second-level, not first, along with random islands and full nations. Why are such things combined together? It's even bad enough if you try to restrict to only first-level subdivisions, as these are rather different entities from nation to nation. This is exactly the sort of dreck that NLIST, CROSSCAT, etc., should be used to weed out. And make no mistake, there's nothing all that special about sorting by area. We could also do it by population, by number of roads, or total jellybean exports. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have such lists for population or jellybean exports because those are far less stable. If they were unchanging, it would make sense to have lists. BD2412 T 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so replace population and jellybean exports by highest and lowest elevation, number of lakes, or whatever and the point remains. Those would be stable, yet no reasonable person would argue we should have those. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, IP, we do have:
Of course, those lists overlap in a way area lists don't because the highest point in a county can also happen to be the highest point in a country, but there is no reason we couldn't have a list of highest points by first-level administrative subdivision worldwide. BD2412 T 14:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly don't see the difference between those tightly focused lists of "one geographic characteristic for one clearly delineated, closely related group, e.g. "Swiss cantons"" vs. "one geographic characteristic for three clearly different groups lumped together in one list"? Fram (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be impermissible to have a single list of highest points by administrative division for all administrative divisions on Earth? BD2412 T 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Do you have any idea at all how many "administrative divisions" there are on Earth? How many of these don't even have an article, or have no reliable sources beyond a census result? Never mind "impermissible", let's go with plain "impossible", "impractical" and "totally useless". Why would you want to compare the highest point of municipalities in Denmark to the highest point of parishes in Antigua? Perhaps stick to the discussion on hand and not drag in even worse ideas. Fram (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no law that ties us to an "all-or-nothing" approach. We could absolutely have a list limited to the highest points in all of the top-level administrative divisions (e.g., states and provinces, or the equivalents in other countries). I'm not making that list, but that is the intent with the lists at issue here, with basically a handful of the largest geographic features included for comparison as well. BD2412 T 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about? You posted a question about a list "for all administrative divisions", your words. I replied to your post. Instead of leaving it at that or engaging with my answer in the context of your question, you now act as if I am unreasonable to start about "all-or-nothing", when you were the one to bring this up for some unexplicable reason. You seem to have a very hard time engaging with what is actually being said, instead going off on tangents, strawmen, or other irrelevant stuff. Why? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your personal comments about me. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a Twitter-style cage match. I was clarifying my position, which was in reference to the types of lists of heights of administrative divisions that we already have, and as I provided above. I intentionally excluded things like List of tallest mountains in the Solar System, for exactly this reason. BD2412 T 14:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to strike there, and you only make things worse: "I intentionally excluded things like List of tallest mountains in the Solar System, for exactly this reason." ??? The only time that list was mentioned, was when you included it in the above long list of things we do have. If you want to use the "we are a collaborative project" trump card, then perhaps don't continue to post stuff which is barely distinguishable from troll-posting and gaslighting. It really is impossible at the moment to have an adult, reasonable conversation with you when you keep pretending to have said "A" when you actually said "Z" or "not-A". Fram (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to respond vitriolically to everything I say? I would ask you to please reflect on what is beneficial to the discussion, and govern yourself accordingly. There can be no communication absent a modicum of respect. BD2412 T 14:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel absolutely no respect from you in this discussion, I have explained why your posts are extremely problematic. There is no way to meaningfully engage with your above posts which make claims which completely contradict or ignore your own earlier posts but pretend that they are logical followups. Fram (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the navigational purpose of list, limiting entries to those which have their own articles is a common approach which could solve the How many of these don't even have an article objection. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That quote was in reply to a suggestion to make a list for all administrative divisions on Earth. Nothing is really solved by only including those with an article. For example, random pick: France has about 35,000 communes (Communes of France). Fram (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would, actually. These are fine. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST is the more serious issue. But first of all that guideline says: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I do think that these lists fulfill an informational and navigational purpose, helpful in browsing this specific area of geography. Aside from that, while I did not see lists constructed exactly like this one in secondary sources, the overal topic does get coverage: Statistics for subdivisions of individual countries abound. But we also have these lists by statoids.com putting together inter-country comparisons. The CIA World Factbook gives a list of first-level administrative divisions of all countries, although no areas. GADM presumably has all the stats, but I can't say at this point in what form. And the academic publication Administrative Subdivisions of Countries has all the areas for all the political first-level sub-divisions in one place (and more info), it simply is sorted by country first, rather than by area. (If we wanted to, the lists could be restructured to be sortable by country, giving exactly the format in Administrative Subdivisions, but in addition providing the current sorting by area. - The beauty of Wikipedia being able to provide a sortable table, which a book cannot.)
Lastly, if there should emerge consensus not to keep these articles despite the sources, still WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered. List of countries and dependencies by area and List of administrative divisions by country are closely related topics, and splitting and merging content should then be considered, with redirects WP:PRESERVEing the current content in case the issues can be resolved more satisfactorily in the future. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What contents here are not already available in other lists? We have lists of countries by area, List of first-level administrative divisions by area, ... Nothing is lost if these lists are deleted, nothing needs to be "split and merged", and thus no redirect (which wouldn't work anyway, as it would need to redirect to multiple pages at once) is needed. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, thanks, that was the other related list I could not find any more momentarily. That list in practice only considers the larger political subdivisions, while not making this clear. So for navigational and informational purposes it's less useful and comprehensive. Otherwise the List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all) and List of first-level administrative divisions by area could be merged together after a proper discussion on the inclusion critereon. Pinging @Clarityfiend, Elli, JPxG, Pontificalibus, Earl Andrew, James Ker-Lindsay, and Necrothesp:, participants in that list's deletion discussion, as they possibly might be interested in this one here. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The implicit assumption of the nomination is that no one wants to be able to compare the sizes of different kinds of entities. For example, that no one wants to be able to look at a list to see whether Siberia (an administrative division) is bigger than Europe (a continent), which in fact it is; or to see which country is closest in size to California, which as it turns out, is midway between Iraq and Paraguay. I'm all for refining the lists to avoid including a ton of islands, but alternatives to deletion should absolutely be considered. BD2412 T 16:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that Western Australia is slightly larger than the Mediterranean Sea, which is slightly larger than Central America, which is slightly larger than Algeria? Really, this could be a featured list. BD2412 T 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find all of this very fascinating. What I can say from secondary sources is that Administrative Subdivisions naturally includes the data of countries together with those of their subdivisions for comparison. Also size-wise including them would be no problem. And this is another distinction between the lists in question here and List of first-level administrative divisions by area in its current form. Daranios (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"What I can say from secondary sources is that Administrative Subdivisions naturally includes the data of countries together with those of their subdivisions for comparison." Within the same country? Yes, we do that on enwiki as well, and such lists are not up for deletion. But lists which compare the size of the different cantons of Switzerland with the size of different countries? Unlikely... Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The data is there to check out in one place, in one work, but not sorted by area. About the beauty of sortability on Wikipedia and the LISTN question in general, please see my comments above. Daranios (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, and the problem of where to target the redirect, if it came to that, would be a minor one: we could decide on the most closely related topic, which would presumably include links to the other related topics under at least under "See also" anyway. Daranios (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely per BD2412. I do not object to the nominator's claim that the page needs some cleanup, but I do object to the idea that splitting an article creates new requirements for the endpoints of each resultant article. I made a split like this once, which created List of elections before 1701 and List of elections, 1701–1800: the split doesn't require me to find corroborating historiography that say something special happened in the development of electoral politics in 1701. jp×g🗯️ 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly the reason for this nomination though. The basic structure of the list, comparing sizes of countries, continents, and subdivisions of countries, is basically only done (outside Wikipedia) for some large entities, usually comparing a US state to a country or vice versa. Probably not a single reliable source so far has compared (or even compiled together) e.g. the cantons of Luxembourg with the municipalities of the Northern Marianas and the parishes of Dominica. A "list of elections" is one clearly defined group, which has only been split for reasons of size. Here we have completely disparate groups thrown together because, well, all I see is "I like it" and "it's useful" arguments, with the latter being rather dubious for those thousands of small entities. We can imagine thousands of lists that some people might find interesting, yet such lists get deleted all the time if they have not been treated as a group in reliable sources or present a clear, simple navigational aid. These lists are neither. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. These sorts of comparisons are commonplace and well known - sources ask What Countries In Europe Will Fit Inside Texas?, or compare the size of Ireland to the size of West Virginia and Indiana. If all the islands are all removed from the lists, as suggested, then the lists nominated here could be merged into a single one. I would support that merge as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparisons of size (or economy, or population) of countries vs. US states are quite common. Comparisons between most entries on List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers seem to be nonexistent. No one ever cared that Elba, Mersch (canton) and South Dublin are nearly the same size. Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have already agreed that islands that are not their own administrative subdivision should not be included in these lists, and South Dublin, not being a top-level administrative subdivision, should be removed as well. That is a cleanup task, not a cause for deletion of the entire world. BD2412 T 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Missing the point again. I'll change it to "No one ever cared that Yerevan, Mersch (canton) and San Juan–Laventille are nearly the same size." if that helps you. Fram (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you suggest that List of first-level administrative divisions by area should not exist, then? Surely no one has ever demonstrably cared if Hormozgan province, North Kalimantan, and Morogoro Region are nearly the same size. If not, what is the distinction? BD2412 T 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if it should exist. I note that it has a clear cut-off of 75,000 km², so all these small to very small, barely known administrative divisions (outside their own country, and with exceptions of course) are at least not included. Even then, I doubt many sources and people are interested to know whether Bahia is larger or smaller than Khanty-Mansi. It looks as if all sources are about one country only, none about the cross-country comparison. But the lists at AFD now are in any case a lot worse (apart from cleanup aspect), for mixing multiple levels and including much more obscure, small to very small administrative divisions which will have appeared much less often in comparisons (I can imagine people writing things like "Hokkaido, which is about the size of South Carolina" or vice versa: like I said, I can not imagine anyone (or certainly not any reliable source) saying anything like "Mersch, which is about the size of San Juan-Laventille", so why should we be making that comparison? Fram (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth there seems to be some interest in comparing smaller entities of different countries, like in this article comparing London, Madrid, Paris, Manhattan. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are obvious exceptions, and not all of them even first-level divisions so not included in these articles anyway. Fram (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting into details here, but those four are currently included in the lists. To my understanding, London, Madrid, Paris are first-level administrative divisions, while Manhattan is a geographic feature included because of its high relevance (presumably extremely well-known across the globe). Daranios (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paris is a second-level division, the first level would be Île-de-France. For London, the first level is Greater London, but this one is complex. Madrid as well is second-level, first level is Community of Madrid, more than 10 times as large as Madrid. Fram (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I stand corrected on that point. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitrary cut-off of 75,000 km² means that numerous entire countries are excluded, as are well-known U.S. states like Massachusetts and New Jersey and Rhode Island (see, e.g., "29 Countries Smaller Than Rhode Island" as evidence of interest in comparisons there), and Canadian provinces like Nova Scotia. The list contains the Australian state of New South Wales, but doesn't even include actual Wales (see "The Size of Wales", stating that "Montenegro, Beirut and Cyprus are half the size of Wales, while Arizona is 14 times bigger and Sicily is a very-specific 'one and a quarter times the size'..."). BD2412 T 16:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a List of first-level administrative divisions by area, all countries are excluded, not just some. That second source is a completely unreliable blog, with claims like Beirut (size at most 35 km²) is "half the size" of Wales (more than 20,000 km²)... Not sure what your actual point is in using such dubious arguments to slag off this list which is not up for AfD but which you brought up anyway. Fram (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to determine what principle would exclude lists of comparisons below a certain size, or between certain kinds of entities. The blog is not cited as a source, merely for the proposition that people make these sorts of comparisons between different levels of entities. Your own observation about the size of Wales demonstrates that readers would benefit from being able to evaluate claims like that one, or this claim about the size of Texas. BD2412 T 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can evaluate this quite easily: in general, when you want to compare two things, you open the two articles. That's how I did it, it really isn't hard. We have to put cutoffs somewhere in any case, in the lists up at AfD the cutoff is "first-level", you don't include second-level ones even though some of these are much bigger and much better known than 90% of the ones that are actually included. The combination of the three levels now included is completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the lists is to include countries (past and present), first-level administrative divisions, a handful of exceptional or remarkable second-level administrative divisions (there are a few counties in the U.S., for example, that are noted for being larger than many U.S. States and other countries in the world), some prominent multi-country or multi-state entities, and a handful of geographic features such as oceans and large seas. Everything else should be removed, which is a cleanup task. I am certainly open to codifying limitations on subjects for inclusion, if anyone wants to engage in that process. BD2412 T 17:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that not arbitrary? Fram (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As JPxG has pointed out, it is entirely permissible within Wikipedia to have arbitrary cutoffs and delineations. In fact, the encyclopedia is chock full of them. Debating which cutoffs points or principles are reasonable is a separate discussion from debating whether they should exist. BD2412 T 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So to recap, you bring up a different list for to comment on, make it an issue that it uses an arbitrary cutoff because that excludes things which are out of scope anyway, only to now argue that an arbitrary cutoff is no problem. Fine, I´m really confused what your actual point was on starting this side discussion about that other list. That having a much more clearly delineated list with many well-known entries (plus some lesser known ones for the average English speaking person, and missing some other well known entities) is somehow a reason to keep articles with many, many more rather unknown entries for enwiki readers, and with more mixed criteria? Fram (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it exactly. BD2412 T 19:34, 21 May 2025 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Indian television

2016 in Indian television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD denied, converting to AFD. Rationale from PROD: fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by quality of healthcare

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

There could be an article corresponding to this title, but I doubt it given that "quality of healthcare" is made of multiple factors and cannot be reasonably reduced to a single scalar value. In any case, this is not that article. The talk page shows lots of people unhappy with the existence of this article since several years. I tend to be on the inclusionist site, but this article is a net negative IMHO. cyclopiaspeak! 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. Also, it can be improved Mast303 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is NOT original research! It meets nearly all policies, and any problems can easily be fixed by editing. Also, we can find sources. TheLatinNerd (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2025 (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.

Wreck diving sites of Cape Town

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

Article subject appears to be not notable. Refer to policy WP:NOTDATABASE: simply listing a group of related items is generally discouraged. Although WP contains many list-type articles, there is no consensus for the notability "List of diving sites of XXX" articles. In any case, WP:GNG policy requires multiple independent sources that discuss the list AS A GROUP. Noleander (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been heavily edited since its nomination so I'm relisting it and hope that participants re-review it since the AFD was opened. Please do not move the article before the AFD is closed. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Shipwrecks of Cape Town, which implies a slight expansion of scope. Article was nominated prematurely while under construction (and is still under construction). Scope of existing content is appropriate for proposed rename, and has adequate references either already cited or potentially citeable to establish general notability. If anyone wonders why I did not just rename it to the better title, I did, but have been reverted because this AfD is still open. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "List of shipwrecks in the Western Cape" - I completely agree with renaming this. The article itself is pretty bad and needs a lot of cleanup, but it's a valid NLIST article if you look at the sourcing, especially the book which groups these topics together. NOTDATABASE also does not apply here, especially because this is not a simple list, but does provide context. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are dozens more shipwrecks in the Western Cape, perhaps hundreds. I do not have anywhere near the same quality of sources for them at this stage so would recommend 'Shipwrecks of Cape Town' or 'Shipwrecks of Table Bay, Robben Island, the Cape Peninsula, and False Bay', as the preferred title. A conservative estimate for the article size when I have finished with current sources would be in the order of 140K and around 80 sections, which is big enough. Also there are differences in the reasons for shipwrecks occurring on this particular part of the coast compared to the rest of the Western Cape. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:12, 26 May 2025 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup third place matches

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

Not notable. Simply a list of matches. Insufficient independent sources that discuss this topic in depth. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of data. Noleander (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (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 snack foods by country

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

article is unnecessary and poorly written SapphicVibes (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw if I messed this up please be kind this is literally the first thing i've ever done on Wikipedia and i'm trying my very best SapphicVibes (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination, due to someone making the article into a redirect. - SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[8:39 PM] SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article that is the subject of this nomination is not and has never been a redirect, as best I can tell. (Shortly before this nomination was started, List of brand name snack foods was blanked, redirected, and partially merged into this list, which may be what SapphicVibes is referring to.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Unnecessary" is a subjective opinion and is not a policy-based deletion rationale. If I had seen this earlier, I would have closed this discussion but there is a Delete argument now. Still no consensus so I'll let this run a little longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of state media by country

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

Since we have Category:State media - i think this list is not needed. Its difficult to maintain or verify accuracy. Category should be the source of truth. Cinaroot (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Davenport, Iowa

List of professional baseball teams based in Davenport, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to History of Davenport, Iowa. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Fort Wayne, Indiana

List of professional baseball teams based in Fort Wayne, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list which seems to fail WP:NLIST. I find no independent reliable sources that justify this being a standalone list. Although each of these teams existed, that does not justify a list. If sources are added, this might be a merger candidate to the section History of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Without any sources, it's trivia that fails notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:39, 22 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Minor League Baseball#Top 100 teams with the history preserved should someone wish to merge Star Mississippi 02:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list has no indepedent, reliable, or third party sources, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. I could not find anything online that was independent to establish that this should be a standalone list. Although everything is cited, it uses only primary sources. A possible merger target might be List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams, but non-primary sources would be required. Flibirigit (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (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. Nominator was blocked as a sock. No arguments in favor of deletion Star Mississippi 02:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ETA following cleanup (thank you). No policy based arguments in favor of deletion. Should an established editor be interested, no prejudice against a renomination. Star Mississippi 02:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda

List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason The page is essentially promotionnal. It consists in copy/pasting several similar lists that can be found online, for instance here and there. Babylone444 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE —Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this page. Celica tom (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: He clearly has a lot of awards and these are given SIGCOV in both sources covering individual awards and the awards he has received as a whole. Because of this, I am concerned that this nom is a defamation attack against the subject and has no actual rationale. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2025 (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 communes of Luxembourg by population

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

This page, together with List of communes of Luxembourg by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of communes of Luxembourg by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), serve absolutely no purpose, as they list information that is already compiled on List of communes of Luxembourg. Someone close to 20 years ago decided to create a separate list for each of these features, and it means unnecessary extra work has to be put in when, for instance, updating population statistics. Procrastineur49 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is not having a clear consensus and seems to be leaning towards redirect. Kindly weigh in on redirect/keep/delete or other per policies to have a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the table on the main article can already be sorted by pop / pop density / etc. so this is basically a pure duplicate. A redirect would be fine as well, but slightly favor delete bc if the nominated article was a draft received at AfC I think a reasonable reviewer could decline on the grounds of 'already exists'. Zzz plant (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anime with Alvin episodes

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

Two episode lists for YouTube cooking shows, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NWEB. We don't even have articles about the series, just one about the overall YouTube channel that they're distributed on -- and each of these is referenced to a single news article each to verify that the shows exist, while otherwise referencing the actual content of the lists (i.e. the episode titles, airdates and YouTube view counts) to their own primary source presences on YouTube or the host's own self-published website rather than reliable third-party sourcing.
So if the shows could be properly verified as having enough reliable source coverage to earn their own standalone articles as separate topics from the overall channel, then we could include the episode lists in the show articles -- but we don't need standalone episode lists if the shows don't even have articles at all, and we'd need to see a lot more than just one reliable source each to justify articles about the shows. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Instead of trying to delete it, help contribute to the article. Thats the point of Wikipedia. Bluehawkking (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2025 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games

AfDs for this article:
List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two of the teams mentioned in the article are currently in the Pac-12. Would it make sense to have a List of Southwest Conference football rivalry games list article too? This list should have been merged with the main Pac-12 Conference article back when the conference had 12 members. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2025 (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. with the concerns about verifiability and the utter lack of sourcing, nor sourcing identified during this discussion,there is no viable ATD. Star Mississippi 00:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, make such improvements as are needed, move to a draft if necessary to get there. Perplexed by continuing efforts to not have lists bringing together information in a useful compactness. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (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 U.S. state welcome signs

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

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that Pi is an administrator on Commons? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Road signs by country.
  • Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article, it is a photo collage. There is essentially no prose or substance to it. I'm a little concerned at those who are looking at similar photo montages in publications and using them to support significant coverage claims - we would need articles that actually discuss the signs as a whole (and "discussed" is the exact verbiage in NLIST) rather than simply list photos of them with little or no further context. This article also asserts that each state has just one kind of welcome sign, which is not true, and does not check for the timeliness of the supposed "current" signs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+delete Besides WP:NOTGALLERY, there's also the implication that each state has one distinctive sign type. I don't think that's true in Maryland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't true in other states. The style of sing evolves over time, but older signs are not necessarily replaced promptly; I also recall that on some more prominent roads there is more elaborate signage at some crossings. This feels like a commons category, not a list article. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't an article, it's a WP:GALLERY, and as Mangoe pointed out there are states with several welcome sign designs because of age or historic notability, along with several 'local' areas such as the state line between the Kansas Citys where there isn't expected to be a welcome sign at every intersection of State Line Road. Other signs are obnoxious WP:PROMO for their governor's initiatives with taglines (Florida especially, and any state which uses 'open for business') and switched out between governorships. Nathannah • 📮 22:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K)

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With this title, I would expect Information about the European competitions (for clubs or national teams), not a collection of results of national competitions which just happen to share a continent but are otherwise not related. Seems like a weird way to present these. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

2024–25 in European women's basketball (L–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (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 no consensus‎. Editors agree that we should not have this article in its present state, but are ambivalent over whether it needs deletion or something else. At any rate, it looks like that "something else" can happen editorially. asilvering (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem here in my opinion is that the article is not what the title claims. This is a sort of construction planner or construction history, for lack of a better term. It's not just a list, and trying to use it as one left me frustrated trying to figure out how many MRT and LRT lines there are in Singapore in total. I'm not really seeing the rationale for this article in its current form, and its sheer size makes it unwieldy, but I can see the rational for an article at this title, just not the one that we have right now. I don't have a clear target for merging or redirecting, so I'm left without a formal opinion on how to close this AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per S5A-0043, fails to satisfy WP:NLIST with too much content not "discussed as a group". This is a well-laid-out, fanciful list article that has far too much information for the sourcing, becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. I will submit that there is original research and the content strays into fringe theories. The "MRT lines" section has "Service commencement" dates of 36 and 37 years ago. It includes unsourced dates and "ages", which will require meticulous yearly editing to remain up-to-date. Many entries have the length listed as "TBD," even on lines in service for 30 or more years. While I champion ATD, it would be a monumental task to merge any salvageable content, and a redirect would not seem possible with the title-to-content disconnect. Because the parent articles are too big, this does not give a green light to keep an article with unsolvable issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Start date and age automatically updates ages...this doesn't require "meticulous yearly editing".... I'm quite baffled what would be a "fringe theory" here or what is original research. The sourcing here could be improved and there may be cleanup required, but I don't see any basis for these claims. These are hardly substantial issues, much less unsolvable ones. Reywas92Talk 05:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The delete vote above is unpersuasive. These are the mass transit rail lines in Singapore owned by the Land Transport Authority, so I don't see how it would be an indiscriminate collection of information – it's a very well defined list of the lines organized by their construction segments – or how it's possible to claim that the country's rail lines are not discussed as a group. This is very appropriate information, not "far too much information", and a need for more sourcing does not mean it's original research or should be deleted in this instance. It's an excellent subarticle of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Network and infrastructure and Light Rail Transit (Singapore)#Network that provides relevant details in an organized table. Even if the indivual lines' articles also include segment history, this is a good way to present it all together, regardless of any need for cleanup. Reywas92Talk 05:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. The MRT and LRT articles are also very lengthy, and this information is better off on a separate page. Issues with sourcing, OR, and excessive detail can (and should) be fixed through normal editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 May 2025 (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. Star Mississippi 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabzee discography

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

Does not meet GNG and the one reference provided in the article does not cover the subject in depth https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/malayalam/thallumaala-song-manavaalan-thug/amp_videoshow/93500395.cms Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 16 May 2025 (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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists&oldid=1291286920"