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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway (2nd nomination), since this article was split from that one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources." is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do such sources exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When skimming through this list I came across the clearly nonsensical "Korsonpuorrä". But neither Google nor Bing turn up any results for "Korsonpuorra" without the Ä at the end, which is what I assume was intended. So it seems like at the very least WP:TNT would indicate getting rid of this as at least some of the information just seems to be wrong. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of a deeper look, it seems that the Kven name of the place is the more sensible Kursunpörä, and "Korsonpuorrä" is the Norwegian transcription of that name. Sensible in Kven, that is, as the Standard Finnish form of this would presumably be "Kursunperä". I.e. it looks like the page is mixing up three different languages - Norwegian, Kven and Finnish. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This is just a listing of names from a geographical database. The reader would be better served by a link to https://www.kvenskestedsnavn.no and a real article which gives some background, and that should be the main article Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – !voting keep does not obligate anyone to add sources. !voting doesn't obligate anyone to do anything. The biggest issue with the page is actually that it doesn't differentiate between Finnish and Kven.

Ike Lek (talk) 03:45, 11 July 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway

AfDs for this article:

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

Uncited and not notable. In the past 12 years an enormous amount of uncited info has been added to the internet. So at least we could delete some. Wikipedians opinion on uncited articles may have changed since the last discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, Finland, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark (2nd nomination), since that article was split from this one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "...uncited info has been added to the internet [so] at least we could delete some" is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do sources for this article exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is wrong, since the Finnish names are usually endonyms: either Forest Finnish or Kvenish origin. Purely Finnish exonyms can be found from Finnish exonym database. List of Kvenish names can be found from a database (see also the "about" page). Discussion about the place names can be found in this article in Kielikello (in Finnish), and this article (in Norwegian). Also here: Språkrådet. The official toponymic guidelines also discuss Kven names. The topic is notable, although there's not much of an article here, and it needs a better name. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some discussion about Forest Finnish names: https://kielikello.fi/kaskisuomalaisista-metsasuomalaisiksi/ Perhaps rename as ~~Kven and Finnish place names in Norway~~ Kven place names. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position here: I don't find a mere list of place names appropriate per WP:NOT (and WP:NOTDICT), but an article that discusses how those names emerged, their legal status etc. is fine. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least this one, unlike most exonym listicles, gives itself a boundary: those names authoritatively recognized, in a limited field. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isnt even an article in Finnish wiki, altho as above at least it is limited and grounded in a real world consideration. Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded the article to focus exclusively on Kven place names, as that appears to be the best-documented topic. I'm not opposed to including information on Finnish exonyms or Forest Finnish place names, but for now I've left those out. I didn't make any changes to the list of place names, though I think it should be trimmed or at least organized according to some principle. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very much a notable topic in connection to Norwegian language policy and Norwegianization, as the sources in the article show. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 20 July 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 speedy keep‎. The nomination rationale is not valid grounds for article deletion. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene exonyms

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

When I click the cite I get a warning that it may be a deceptive website Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Slovenia. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I replaced the link that generates a warning with a safe older archived version and added the official government source for these names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another reference from the corresponding article in Slovenian to demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sole reason stated for deletion is apparently that an external link had expired, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does look like a procedural speedy keep. I look forward to the next nomination under WP:NOTDICT. —Tamfang (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per WP:CSK#3, no accurate deletion rationale has been expressed. Let'srun (talk) 12:00, 7 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Hungary-related articles

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

23 other pages

This discussion aims to continue the idea behind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, but to avoid trainwrecks in the process.

To give a short background: there was some level of consensus found in 2021-22 AfD discussions that the typical Index of X country article is inadequate. This is due to their obsolescence, poor maintenance, and lacking comprehension.

However, the failure of the Abkhazia et al AfD put a stop to this, as it was a trainwreck. Too many articles were nominated.

In the meantime, a few indices of this type were merged into outlines, or deleted, but the rest remain unaffected. Three years later, the situation is more or less the same.

The selection process for indices in this nomination took into account every content, and activity-based objection raised so far (of course, aside from those who want to keep all of them as is, hence the point of the discussion) in general, or in specific. This was the formula:

1. Abhkazia et al indices of countries with more than 100 000 citizens; so that the low activity cannot ever hope to provide even something approaching a wide preview.

2. out of that set, a further subset was determined based on the paucity of the content, quantiatively, and qualitatively (empty sections for letters other than Q, W, X, Y); this shows an unacceptably low level of care, and it's unlikely this will ever change, as this type of index has generally stagnated in the last 15+ years

To put it simply, these are the worst of the worst. I believe there is nothing salvageable to be found in the 24 nominated articles for deletion.

N.b. I haven't put up an AfD notice on the 23 other articles, at the time of nomination. I am going to do that now. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Asia, Syria, Yemen, Europe, Hungary, Oceania, Latin America, South America, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary collection. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geogarphy, Liberia, and Senegal. Dege31 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, they look like valid navigational pages that just need work - if these are the "worst of the worst" they're not that bad, really, even if they do need some work. The Index of X-related articles goes back to the early days of Wikipedia as a navigational link, so I'd prefer an RfC to try to figure out if these are still useful and how to make them useful, and then we can delete them after that if they're not, but at the moment these do look like they pass NLIST as valid navigational pages. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've needed 'some work' for 15+ years. They may be valid navigational pages, but the nominated ones are almost totally unmaintained. LISTPURP gives three main purposes: information, navigation, development. How do indices that have received minimal maintenance at best for 15+ years fulfill these purposes? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly like navigational content to me. Once they're finished, they need limited maintenance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're far from finished, is what I'm saying. Dege31 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason for deletion, that's a reason for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am claiming the required cleanup is (at the moment) realistically impossible! Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - could just be an agreement on what these need to look like and then executing it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what possibilities there are other than outlines with a different name (of course, a part of this discussion is whether outlines have made them mostly obsolete), or the current state, where they're supposed to be unbounded, and cover everything. I can imagine something like, Index of Hungary-related sports article, etc (or at least what can be potentially salvaged), but that still doesn't do any merits to the current batch. Do you have something else in mind? Dege31 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a list of the most important articles from a geography context mixed with the most important WikiProject articles like Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland/Lists of pages/Articles, which is an important link map but too large to be of too much practical use. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. I do not believe alphabetical indexes like these are valid or useful navigational pages. They are typically incomplete, poorly maintained, and duplicate other pages, categories, and navboxes. Outlines like Outline of the Dominican Republic and navboxes like Template:Hungary topics are substantially more useful than alphabetical listings like this. We have a search bar, so I've always been confused what the point of pages like this was when there is no organization or context, just an alphabetical list of links. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can't see which practical use these have. They consist of a (badly updated) hodgepodge of essential topics, AFD-worthy topics and everything in between, with nothing to differentiate them and no context. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Nearly impossibly difficult to complete or maintain. Subcategories of Category:Hungary, etc. serve the same purpose much better and are better organized than alphabetically, which makes no sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They're really not that bad. I see no real benefit to getting rid of them. Ike Lek (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The real benefit would be in not wasting the time of readers who find that the indices are not at all what they expected, and so small that even if they move past that, they probably don't have what they wanted to find. Dege31 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Marathi

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

I think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del. Seconded. Not TV Guide, no encyclopedic content. --Altenmann >talk 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a NOTTVGUIDE issue here – that policy discusses electronic program guides, which would list all of the shows and episodes airing on a given day. This is a higher-level list; it mentions very basic information for each show, not every single instance of its airing. Perhaps WP:NLIST is more relevant? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:00, 10 July 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)} 21:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT, that has navigational and informational purposes (see WP:NLIST). - Eva Ux 11:09, 22 July 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. While I'm on the fence regarding the applicability of SK criterion #3, I see clear consensus to keep the page. Renaming and changing the focus of the page are outside the scope of AfD, and may be pursued editorially. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the ~~required~~ WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per one of the comments made by @Daranios:. Plus, a lot of redirects go to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX and WP:POPULARPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with stipulations. Per my BEFORE I decided to carry out since the nom did not specify if they did one, I found one strong hit from a PHD professor, and another good one on the concept of female superhero teams (Requires Springer access). At a glance there seemed to be other hits of varying sizes and scope, but a lot of it was focused on the FF, Avengers, or X-Men. I'd say there's enough for a "teams" list, but my main issue lies in the other half.

I have to agree that the list is definitely COATRACK-esque. What defines a "team" or an "organization" that they should be discussed together? Something like Advanced Idea Mechanics or S.H.I.E.L.D. are organizations, but they are not "teams" like the sources I've seen seem to define the Avengers or FF, and don't seem to have any similarities beyond having multiple people in one place. I additionally found no strong SIGCOV hits for "organizations" as a subject, barring specific organizations like Hydra or SHIELD which have individual analysis.

I feel this list needs to be ironed down to just "teams", but I do not feel like this list needs to be deleted and has a valid case for staying. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia:TNT to make this focus only on the individual "teams", removing any of these organizations since they don't really have connections. I'd advise the nom to take a look through the individual groups and try cleaning those up though, since I doubt many of them are notable, and it would help this list since it would determine what needs to be mentioned here and what could be reasonably discussed in another article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Your first source discusses superhero teams in comparison/contrast with supervillain organizations on p. 50, but I can only see a snippet so don't know the extent. So there is some connection made. Additionally, our category system currently treats Category:Marvel Comics teams as a subset of Category:Marvel Comics organizations. But let's assume for a moment that "Marvel Comics teams" is a notable topic and "Marvel Comics organizations" is not. We still have a number of stand-alone articles on Marvel Comics organizations, so a listing of them at least for navigational purposes makes sense (WP:CLN). According to WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN/WP:ATD-M this should then be a sub-section of a parent list. Topic-wise that could be Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, but it could just as well be a subsection of List of Marvel Comics teams as a closely related subject (again compare the example at WP:ATD-M). All of that however, as I we seem to agree, is an editorial decision and therefore not relevant to the deletion of this list. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this should likely be discussed is moreso my point, whether here or at the talk page, whatever works best for editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd rather see Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe handled (redirected/merged here first). We really need to deal with that pointless MCU forking of content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources discussion organizations within the MCU: "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero.", "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?". So I guess there is some argument to make for having a stand-alone Cinematic Universe list. More important is probably the question, if we look at it from a navigational point of view for a moment: Do these two lists refer more to different articles or the same ones? Daranios (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the teams have significant overlap and are the same thing except in different mediums, a merge might be worthwhile since then both halves can be discussed together as one concrete whole, but I would suggest that after a thorough cleanup is done to see what content is actually "notable" and both lists are ironed and cleaned up to include the substantial content (I.e, reception/analysis, any dev info available, etc) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I agree that the MCU content needs to be sorted through, but that is best to discuss first at WT:MCU before proceeding with any AfDs to determine a consensus for how to handle those, but that is aside from this AfD. As for this list, I think we may need to WP:TNT it. Either this list is vastly reworked or it is merged into Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, which already has some overlapping entries. Willfully refusing to update many redirects should not be an excuse to not improve an article. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101: I see a lot of room for improvement, but hardly a reason for WP:TNT. Again looking at it from a navigational point of view: There are a number of relevant entities under Category:Marvel Comics organizations, and a lot of blue links here. Assuming that at least a relevant percentage of these are what they are supposed to be (links to articles or redirects to where the topic is treated within another article), there is a lot which currently is useful, while WP:TNT says, start over if there's nothing useful except the title. So to improve it I would say the order should be to more clearly formulate inclusion criterea, then comb through the list according to these, see what we have then. If what remains is comparatively small (which I don't expect), then one can think about a merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations. Thinking about it now, when the list is a whopping 220 kB and the suggested target is 127 kB seems not helpful to me. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think operating by TNT in spirit but not totally would be an ideal solution, as in the contents of this list are trimmed down significantly to the bare essentials. That could make a potential merge easier and be able to better assess what is actually notable between what is trivial or not that important. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but merging should not be an end in itself. If removing entries not fitting for an encyclopedia article leads to a short list, then that's all nice and good. But if not, then it should stay separate. And the aim should not be "as short as possible", but to include what makes sense to give "access to the sum of all human knowledge" without becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And then comes my ususal view of things: Include blue-linked entries for navigation, including a reasonable summary description; and include entries which are non-notable but on which something can be said in the encyclopedic context. This can mean entries where secondary sources have something to say about them, but not to the extent that warrants a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While such issues can be brought in task force discussion, it's important to remember that such a forum is heavily biased towards inclusionism for its topic, as it is populated by broadly understood fans of the topic. (This is also a problem that plagues most merge and talk page discussions; and sure, you could make argument in reverse for AfD and like... sigh). Anyway, MCU existence has generated plenty of good sources, but often they tend to estabilish notability of the primary concept, with no need for a MCU-only fork (which generally only adds some info on casting and movie/TV prop creation; even readers are not served by the forking usually - for all but the few key characters/concepts, a MCU section in the main article for whatever topic we are talking about would suffice). Just look at the list nominated here and the MCU equivalent - there's a ton of overlap. I'd suggest merging them - there's no good reason for the split. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Care to count the current percentages of the two lists linking to Marvel Comics themed and MCU-specific articles, respectively? Daranios (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point? Feel free to count and tell us why it matters, I am honestly curious. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but I don't have the time and energy currently (among other things there are a lot of deletion discussions going on...). The point I've already described above, but to rephrase: How many articles and relevant blue links are there on teams and organizations specific to the MCU as opposed to the comics? Kind of decisive for the question of a separate MCU list is warranted or not with regard to WP:LISTPURP-NAV. Daranios (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. If there is a problem with criteria create a better criteria. Lightoil (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just vaguely waving at policies without explaining how it can be cleaned up to be enyclopedic doesn't help. What makes a "good" Marvel team as opposed to a bad one to put on this list? Nobody would ever agree on a criteria that makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus to Teams in Marvel Comics per Pokelego999. This article is in need of serious clean-up, and I could be persuaded that WP:TNT applies, particularly because we're combining two concepts into a list that generates a lot of WP:IINFO. I don't see a consensus for deleting at this time, so I would support a new article title with a clearer scope to see if it allows us to fix the issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 25 July 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 redirect‎ to Pokémon (TV series). Further discussion about merging can occur at the target article talk page, and can be performed by retrieving content from the redirect's history. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon anime characters

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

let's follow along with the list of pokémon characters' second afd discussion!!

this list currently has a few sprinkles of usable material drowning in a pile of fancruft. from some relatively quick looking, i've come across three main issues

with the exceptions of ash, brock, misty, and serena, the most notable characters seem to mostly be notable in the context of their appearances in the games (and we all know how that turned out), as opposed to the anime. i couldn't find too many sources on their anime appearances beyond what's already here

on that note, most of the sources i ended up finding, and the ones that ended up here, are primary, unusable, or not worth much for notability. this includes credits lists (tv tokyo, corocoro), voice actors' own sites, social media (facebook and twitter), and interviews (some on youtube, some being seemingly unreliable podcasts). thus, there's nearly actual sigcov to even warrant this list in the first place

from my count, exactly 31 of the 72 sources here would count for that, and about 11 of those are pretty insubstantial, leaving this entire list with 20 sources i think are actually reliable and useful

to make things a little worse, nearly all of the characters who do have enough material to work with already have articles of their own, so what little info they have here that isn't there yet could just be merged into their articles or the specific series they appear in

for debates on which series this info would need to be put in for characters who don't have their own articles... debut generation/series works unless talking about them in other series' contexts, i'd say

i don't even believe this can really fulfill wp:listn, as the only real demonstrated notability anyone has here is isolated or based on their interactions with ash and brock (and somehow no one else), which makes the roster itself not particularly notable

considering that entire sections of this list have nothing but a single list of credits as a source (rising volt tackler gamign), and other sections aren't even lucky enough for that (gym leaders and antagonists other than team rocket), i recommend either deleting or, if any info is deemed worth keeping, merging and redirecting it to pokémon (tv series) for attribution, as if it was just "trimmed", i'm not entirely sure the amount of characters it mentions with more than a name would exceed 5

what do you mean those weren't three issues? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Popular culture, and Japan. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. I feel like it's possible that the characters from the Original Series may be notable, as mentioned in the nomination by Consarn, due to the heavy prominence of that show, but in terms of every Pokemon anime ever made, certainly not. This list is simply too broad, and WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Zx and Consarn. This thing is a behemoth of a mess, and I feel you can probably count the list of even slightly notable characters from the anime on one hand, and most of those are already spun out. What we have here instead is trying to cover too much at once and at the same time every little detail, making it impossible to justify WP:LISTN and violate WP:NOT at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Pokémon (TV series) and reduce plot-based description for the best. If some characters are notable (Ash, Brock, Misty, and Serena), I feel like there's no need to delete the article. We've been dealing with the recent issues about list of anime characters pages over and over. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i did mention that they were notable... but in this case, they're too notable, as they already have their own articles in which that info could be merged (ass ketchup, brock, misty, fourth best hat of the protags), which is itself implausible because it's already there. i have no idea if this would affect this vote in any way, but it's good to clarify consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. There are already articles about the notable Pokemon, and this list doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN for yet more redundant coverage. There is already an embedded template at every Pokemon article for navigation purposes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uh, i should note that this article is about pokémon characters, not pokémon themselves (you know, like the weird cabbage thing from all the porn). and even then, it's specifically about the human characters, which is kind of weird considering the meowth from the anime (who is a major character), but i won't question it. unless you did actually mean characters, in which case my bad lol consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. Most of the info on the bulk of these recurring characters is discussed at the individual season articles already, with many only being relevant to particular seasons. The main recurring characters can have something added at Pokémon (TV series), which can be done editorially, but currently there's nothing to really "merge" sourcing wise for most of them. Personally I'm leaning redirect per to that article per Wikipedia:AtD, and the fact it will allow for easier merging of content should editors want to do so editorially, but I am unopposed to deletion if it means coming to a quicker consensus. Whatever works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: from some closer examination, i'd like to retract my statement on there being 31 sources that would be usable for this list and 20 that would be useful. from careful-ish analysis, i'd drop the amount of sources i believe would be useful for determining the notability of the cast in general to a grand total of... 7. of which only two aren't primarily about ash, brock, or misty, and even then, they're about ash and team rocket's replacements. so really, if we're being strict, i think the cast itself would actually have nothing to work with beyond how they work from ash's perspective, which is a massive disappointment consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:57, 10 July 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday night NRL results

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

Arbitrary list of NRL games which took place on Monday nights. Fails WP:NLIST. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see it is anything other than WP:LISTCRUFT. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on article to indicate why Monday NRL games needs a separate article. Mn1548 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination. TarnishedPath^talk 08:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination. Knox490 (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination. -- User:SethAllen623 (talk) 22:40, July 5, 2025 (UTC).
Delete I agree that it fails WP:NLIST and it reads as WP:OR given the sources. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:49, 6 July 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. tardis.wiki is not a Wikimedia project, so there's no option to "transwiki" to it while preserving attribution/copyright. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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

A list of appearances by Daleks in a specific media type. Having researched this topic extensively, there is no individual coverage of the Daleks in this type of media, and any coverage of the Daleks in it is purely plot summary information. As it stands this list is an WP:INSIDISCRIMINATE failure. I'd suggest a redirect as an AtD to Dalek. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete Alert editors at https://tardis.wiki/ . This is somebody's hard work, they have just misunderstood the sourcing requirements here. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:34, 10 July 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 14:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bemani musicians

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

Don't believe this topic is sustainable enough to warrant its own article, let alone seeing any sources to support the subject. GamerPro64 04:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Lists, and Japan. GamerPro64 04:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - notability guidelines don’t apply to lists. This is a list. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The idea that "notability guidelines don't apply to lists" is false, WP:NLIST exists. This list does not warrant its own page, and can be explained in Bemani easily. But given that there is a dearth of sources, I wouldn't even say merging is appropriate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bemani#Bemani artists; article looks WP:TNT worthy. IgelRM (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:NLIST where a description of notability recommendations can be found for lists. This doesn't seem to be discussed as a group in RS from what I found, and while some navigational purpose could be found, the list is entirely unreferenced and unverifiable, so the navigation could all be WP:OR, or even made up, for all we know. I don't think redirecting is appropriate as there is no list at the proposed target, and we shouldn't merge anything there without any verifiable sourcing to support it. -2pou (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:NLIST and WP:GNG still matter, and this article doesn't meet our policies. A redirect to Bemani is a good WP:ATD, where reliable sources can be summarized in prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:10, 16 July 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 redirect‎ to Gangs in Australia. As Cameron Dewe correctly points out, WP:TNT is not a policy-based deletion criterion. By !voting "delete per TNT", participants are effectively saying, "The subject meets our notability guidelines, but the content needs rewriting". The way to address that is by editing, whittling down the content to a well-sourced stub, if needed. Sadly, AfD is often the only way to resolve a content dispute, and it seems that is the case here. As such, I see a consensus that a redirect is the preferred solution at this point. Any editor is welcome to submit a new draft to AfC, which if accepted, can be history-merged to replace the redirect, preserving attribution. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in Australia

AfDs for this article:

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

I BLAH'd this to Gangs in Australia and was reverted. This page is an mess of original research seeking to force every Australian gang, regardless of whether they are notable, into some category. There's a section for Hispanic gangs, as if that's a term we use in Australia. The Honoured Society, The Carlton Crew and various other ethnic groups are lumped in with White Supremacists. Lebanese gangs are called mafia (which the sources don't state), and lumped in with Triads and Tongs. Gangs are labelled as being "Indigenous-based", regardless of what the sources say, because hey we're already doing a tonne of original research, why not keep going.
I'm coming here seeking consensus to either WP:TNT it or to restore the redirect to Gangs in Australia.
Ps, there is a discussion currently at Talk:List_of_gangs_in_Australia#RfC:_somewhat_racist_framing which led me to BLAH it in the first place. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to say that I agree with the nominator that this article is extremely problematic, to the point where WP:TNT is warranted. There is little of substance here that isn't already present in Gangs in Australia from what I can see, so I don't feel bad about not leaving a redirect either. If a reader really wants to see them laid out in bullet list form, that's what Category:Gangs in Australia is for after all. MediaKyle (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "post code gangs" section might be worth copying to the other page? I've not looked at it closely enough to see if the sources support what it says, but suburbs are at least a lot less subjective than the other categories, and that section has more detail. 2405:6E00:62F:F7D5:AD8E:344B:5FEC:BC07 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because deletion is not clean-up and WP:TNT does not solve the problem, either. A redirect just kicks the can down the road until somebody decides to resurrect this list, which is notable, in my opinion. The problem with the article is that it lacks any inclusion/exclusion criteria for what is a gang in the Australian context. I have already identified this issue on the talk page. Various Australian state legislatures have passed legislation that names various entities as "gangs", but without a definition of what is a gang in the Australian context, editors have seen fit to conduct original research to add any group of people that call themselves a "gang" to this list without having any consideration for notability and social attitudes. This list should be limited to included gangs that are notable enough to be named in Australian state or federal legislation, or perhaps otherwise recognized by law enforcement agencies as a (criminal) gang that has been subjected to law enforcement activities as an entity in its own right, not just the individual gang members being treated as criminals. As a minimum, the listed gangs should each have their own article. The article might also benefit from being renamed to clarify its scope, but that is a separate discussion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors cited WP:DINC last time this was up for discussion. In that time (almost three years), the article hasn't been cleaned up. So yes, WP:TNT would solve that problem as it would remove an article that has been and is likely to continue being a very bad example of what Wikipedia has to offer. Likewise a redirect would solve the problem as it would lead readers to an article which is of better quality. Per WP:NOPAGE notability does not guaranteee an article and in this circumstance the best outcome would be to either nuke it, and start anew or redirect to an article that isn't a complete mess and which has some overlap with the list. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no good quality list page, then a list section on the Gangs in Australia page makes more sense than keeping a list page that's terrible. Being part of that page also gives room to explain any categories and include references to justify them being included as a category. 2405:6E00:62F:F7D5:AD8E:344B:5FEC:BC07 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct. There's currently a subsection under Gangs_in_Australia#Outlaw_motorcycle_gangs, which has a list of such gangs. I suggest ditching the list page and anyone who's interested doing it properly on the Gang in Australia page. TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "post code gangs" section might be worth keeping. That seems more factual and less opinionated, and has more detail, but I haven't looked at it very closely. The rest is a mess. The rest of the page tries to put everything into an ethnic categories with notes like "predominantly Lebanese", categorises things in ways that aren't locally relevant like "Hispanic", and it combines a weird mix of organised crime gangs and politically motivated hate groups like Soldiers of Odin. Some groups are on the border between crime gang and hate group, but that needs more than a dot point to cover properly. 2405:6E00:62F:F7D5:AD8E:344B:5FEC:BC07 (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gangs in Australia per WP:TNT. I don’t think the issues with this page are fixable through normal editing and I don’t think there is really anything encyclopedic to salvage. This page is completely packed with BLP issues, OR, and problematic sourcing. To name just some of the issues:
- The entire section on the Sunshine Coast either completely fails verification, or is based entirely on a single quote from an anonymous 21-year-old interviewed in 2008 — so the whole section is just one random young person's recounting of what youth gangs might have existed in the city seventeen years ago
- Several entries are incredibly dubiously sourced. For instance, the claim that there are various "Bloods" and "Crips" sets in Australia is based on this source, which does not remotely support that claim
- Several of the gangs mentioned in the "Asian, Triads & Tongs" section are sourced to a parliamentary report that mentions a 1992 report that said that members of those triads might be operating in Melbourne
- The entries in the "Hispanic/Latino" section either fail verification, or are based on scaremongering stories about how Mexican cartels have become part of the Australian drug supply. This story, for instance, does not even mention the Sinaloa cartel

So best case, let’s say we cut every entry that is non-notable or unsourced. You’re still left with a significant number of entries that fail verification or are extremely dubiously sourced, as well as a racial/ideological classification system that is complete OR. Until someone is willing to verify each entry and fix this up properly, I don’t see why this topic can’t be adequately covered on the page Gangs in Australia. MCE89 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gangs in Australia per MCE89. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:49, 10 July 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 16:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese exonyms

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms

Articles for deletion/Chinese exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or China delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:SKCRIT #3, entirely erroneous nomination without a valid rationale. The article isn't even that bad, could use some work sure, but so can everything else. MediaKyle (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfD (where multiple editors called out this article for keeping in a bundled nom) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the pervious AfD, and because the deletion rationale makes no sense. Should we delete every article discussing for example Russian culture and make editors create them in Russian Wikipedia only? Of course we don't, and it's the same idea here. Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic meets WP:GNG as there are multiple independent sources covering Chinese exonyms as a topic of genuine study and academic interest (i.e. history, methodology and analysis of the translation of foreign place names into Chinese). This goes far beyond a simple glossary of terms and/or translations. Here are a few of these sources in English -- many more exist in Chinese which can be seen from the citations in these sources:

Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century, Social Text, Duke University Press.
Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia, Working Paper
Qin Weifen, Wang Difei, Transliteration of Indonesian Geographical Names into Chinese, Jurnal Humaniora
Henry Serruys, Place Names along China's Northern Frontier, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Feng-fan Hsieh, Transcribing foreign names, section from Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Lingustics, vol 4

Thus I believe a keep is warranted. Richard Ye^talk 13:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sebirkhan above quotes my usual rant about exonym lists, but this one is more than a bare list. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Knox490 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources in academic journals and books found by Richard Ye (talk · contribs). The sources definitively show that Chinese exonyms passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. The topic is clearly notable. I don't understand the nominator's suggestion of moving an English-language article to the Chinese Wikipedia. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Makes absolutely no sense to move to Chinese Wikipedia. Chinese Wikipedia should already be using Chinese exonyms. Ike Lek (talk) 00:33, 9 July 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 23:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Serbian Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or Serbia delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable unless a Serbian can convince us otherwise. I agree with Sebirkhan that a move as suggested might be good too. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – A list that just translates place names into another language is not usually sufficient for WP:NOTDICT, however it may still serve a valid navigational purpose if the translated names listed are not based on the locations' current widely used name, but are entirely separate names. For instance, Cheb used to be inhabitted primarily by German-speaking people who used the name Eger for the town, which was derived from Latin. The currently more widely used Czech name emerged mostly unrelated to the older German name, which is still the name used by many German-speakers to refer to the town. A list consisting of mostly cases of this sort is valuable for navigation, and tends to apply to areas that changed hands between groups that spoke different languages frequently throughout history. This is especially useful when locations have multiple unrelated names that are still widely in use. The only instances of this I noticed in this article were: Oradea, Székesfehérvár, Thessaloniki, Ptolemaida, Polykastro, maybe Giannitsa, Edessa, Vienna, maybe Eisenstadt, and Burgenland. I could honestly go either way on if this is enough to justify a full list, but if the article does end up deleted, the Latin-alphabet Serbian exonyms for each of these places should be added as redirects. I also did want to make an important note that moving the page to Serbian Wikipedia, as suggested by the nomination, makes absolutely no sense, as Serbian Wikipedia already uses the Serbian-language/Serbo-Croatian names for all its articles, because that is the language it is written in. – Ike Lek (talk) 00:30, 9 July 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani Turkish exonyms in Georgia

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

The cited sources are not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article list should be deleted, I support Chidgk1 argument of no notability.
Draftily – I think Sebirkhan has demonstrated there there may be sufficient sourcing; however the current article is a nearly unreferenced mess. There is sufficient historical context for this to be more than an indiscriminate list, and I think it should be given the chance to live up to that potential, but only if someone is willing to put in the work. – Ike Lek (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if these can be sourced, the scope is going to be so small that it doesn't make sense to have List of Azerbaijani exonyms and then separate articles for each country. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I admit that I am unable to properly assess several of the sources linked above or in the article due to the language barrier. However, from what I can see, I don't think this needs to be a separate article from List of Azerbaijani exonyms. Most of the entries are for redlinked (presumably non-notable) places, which shouldn't be included at all. None of this has inline citations and one of the two sources cited is a dead link. So, overall I lean towards deletion. If Sebirkhan would like, they may use the sources they presented to expand List of Azerbaijani exonyms. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 16 July 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. I see no P&G-based arguments for retention. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Azerbaijani Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Azerbaijan. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tamfang. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am interested why some users trying to delete only turkic/muslim articles while there are a lot of similar pages in other languages. SEE: Template:Exonyms per language. For example they deleted already ONLY Turkish exonyms, and now trying do delete ONLY Azerbaijani exonyms Sebirkhan (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with religion - I am interested mostly in the country I live in and nearby countries Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why then, using the same logic, didn't you mark articles like the following for deletion: Slovak exonyms, Croatian exonyms, Bulgarian exonyms etc Sebirkhan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebirkhan, they are. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break it to you, but User:Chidgk1 has been on a crusade against all exonym lists for the past couple weeks. I tend to side with keeping them, but they can get to be a bit useless sometimes, making their pruning an important part of maintaining Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic languages like Dutch, Lithuanian, Chinese, Serbian, Slovene. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In March 2024 there was an attempt to delete all of them, which failed as too sweeping. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebirkhan As not all the exonyms listed are English how about you keep it by translating it to Azerbaijani Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the Azerbaijani Wikipedia does not have this article, but there is a similar one: az:Köhnə Azərbaycan ekzonimlərinin siyahısı (list of old Azerbaijani exonyms).

It is based only on historical data and names that were used back when the Azerbaijani language used Arabic script.

But the article "Azerbaijani exonyms" is not relevant to Azerbaijani Wikipedia, since some names on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia are already written in Azerbaijani way, for example, İrevan instead of Yerevan. I mean that the article Azerbaijani exonyms, which exists on the English Wikipedia, is more relevant for those who do not know the Azerbaijani language and do not use the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

and since the Azerbaijani article az:Köhnə Azərbaycan ekzonimlərinin siyahısı (list of old Azerbaijani exonyms) is based on historical data of only the Azerbaijani language, it does not contain many names that came from other Turkic languages, which are relevant for Siberia, Balkans, China, etc. which are exist in English article Azerbaijani Exonyms Sebirkhan (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately this does not make much sense, since the Azerbaijani Wikipedia would already use the Azerbaijani names. They are more likely to have a list of English-language exonyms, for example. Ike Lek (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Increasingly coming to the view that most of these exonym lists arent notable on EN. Metallurgist (talk) 21:18, 13 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak exonyms (Vojvodina)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – page serves a useful navigational purpose. Ike Lek (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like this was created by some one (likely) from that region in 2009 as a niche curiosity, but the notability on here is questionable. Slovak wikipedia would be a good location. They also created Rusyn exonyms (Vojvodina) and Romanian exonyms (Vojvodina), which should have the same fate. Metallurgist (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree, Slovak Wikipedia should be the location for this, not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 July 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 no consensus‎. Terrible deletion ratonale, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian exonyms (Mureș County)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm generally for deleting exonym lists, but not where there is clear historical relevance. Mureș County was once part of the kingdom of Hungary and, according to our article, part of it still has a Hungarian majority. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Tamfang. -Ike Lek (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:50, 16 July 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 two of the Keep participants withdrawing their !vote since the last relist, I now see a consensus to delete the list. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages, List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina, or any appropriate page. Ping me if you need the deleted history for a possible merge. Owen× ☎ 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina

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

Normally at least 2 cites are needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep~~ - This does seem marginally useful, although admitted only in very niche situations. I sampled a few of the pages, and most reiterate the information on the list, which generally satisfies the need for citing that they meet inclusion criteria. Could be a helpful page when doing research, especially using older sources. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google Scholar search shows this is a topic even in English, see [1]. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the nominator is mistaken. An article can be notable with zero citations. It will need to be improved, yes, but notability is not based on the current state of the article but rather the topic as a whole. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, we are supposed to be assessing the likelihood that sources exist which oftentimes is a judgment call. !keep voters often argue that sources exist on very old unsourced pages, not always with much evidence. JMWt (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that still needs to be done as a result of a BEFORE search, not just AfDing an article based on its state. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (striking as agree with the good work and sensible suggestion below) - per WP:NLIST One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Whilst this can be difficult to assess for non-English topics, I highly doubt that they don't exist given the region and language. I agree with SportingFlyer that the paper "THE USE OF MULTILINGUAL PLACE NAMES IN VOJVODINA, SERBIA" in the publication offered above is a decent introduction to the topic and that there are other sources referenced there which could be used as citations for this page. JMWt (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an even more niche version of Serbian exyonms which was deleted (for reasons of WP:NOT rather than notability) at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because it is more niche is why it might be more encyclopedic. Ike Lek (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought I voted on this already, but it seems extremely specific. Serbian exonyms is already gone. Metallurgist (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have deleted Serbian exonyms? SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:Articles for deletion/Serbian exonyms. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems crazy to me, but I wasn't able to quickly identify that Serbian sources on the topic. It was easier to find sources for this topic. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who supported deletion of the main Serbian exonyms article. This one is different because it is specific to a notable subset and not an indiscriminate list. Ike Lek (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that lists of exonyms which are referenced and make sense should be kept. There's a historical logic why certain places have exonyms in certain languages. I can't see what the content was of the other page that was deleted at AfD, but to me the one we are discussing here has a clear logic as to why there are many Serbian exonyms in the area. I'm not even sure I would have !voted !delete for the Serbian exonyms article and am considering DRV as it doesn't feel like the sources were discussed there in much detail. JMWt (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the page was mostly or entirely unsourced. This one has more potential to be encyclopedic. Ike Lek (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed multiple times daily, the point is not about sources on the page but whether they likely exist. It would be a perverse outcome if this was kept whilst the other was deleted because sources for this article are clearly also sources for the other. JMWt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not want to keep this article? I do support keeping this article. Ike Lek (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If seen as a "List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina", this list is, well ... Something got lost in translation there. The following is a random sampling:
Bački Brestovac and Brestovac are equally Serbian names. Banatski Brestovac also allegedly had the "Serbian exonym" Brestovac. These are just two villages originally named Brestovac, one located in Bačka (a historical region partially within Vojvodina; matching adjective: Bački) and the other one in Banat (same as prev.; matching adjective: Banatski). Over time, due to administrative/record-keeping reasons, their official names were differentiated per region. Both villages have been inhabited by Serbs since before their names were "expanded". No exonyms involved.
Some of the names may be former official names but still see some use, for example Nadrljan for Adorjan. Legitimately few Serbs have ever lived in Adorjan and we could be speaking of an exonym candidate here. But, as I said, the name Nadrljan still sees live use: proof. So it cannot be a "former Serbian exonym". That would rather be an "unofficial (still somewhat used) Serbian not-quite-exonym".
Gomboš (listed on the right side) is alleged to be the Serbian name, but it is the Hungarian name, whereas Bogojevo (listed on the left side) is the Serbian name. But, Gombos is the currently official (not former anything of any kind—PDF of a provincial government gazette—Ctrl+F: Gombos) Hungarian name for Bogojevo. The only thing that makes this non-Serbian name "Serbian" is the Serbian spelling "Gomboš". But everything is spelled phonetically in Serbian. I can take a Lao village in Laos that was never mentioned by any Serbian speaker in history and transcribe it into Serbian. So what? It would still be the native Lao name and not an exonym. By the same standard, Adorjan (current official name spelled like that in Serbian and spelled Adorján in Hungarian ... yes, your eyes are straining) would be a "Serbian exonym".
Lazarfeld (listed on the right side), what to say... The village was founded by German colonists, who named it Lazarfeld (yes, they named it after the "Serbian exonym" from the future I guess) after a certain local Armenian man named Lazar, adding -feld to his name, as typical of German-settler placenames. It's a German name through and through.
These are not Serbian-language exonyms, and often they are not exonyms in any group-location relationship. What this list would seem to be is a linguistically irrelevant (no linguistic criterion) collection of certain older placenames collected from 18th and 19th century sources written in Serbian. So the list selection criteria here would ostensibly (read further) be "The names of various towns and villages of Vojvodina that one author encountered during their study of 18th- and 19th-century history of Vojvodina".
But, finally, I have access to this source, and I can't verify that this list exists in it. I have the first edition from 1961 in PDF, but I also have the table of contents of the second edition (link) and it is the same as the contents of the first edition, and it would seem that this is original research! Booo—Alalch E. 03:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a lot to read, but I appreciate the thoroughness. Maybe a better idea would be to expand the tables in List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina to include the different language names of various settlements. Vojvodina, being a very multiethnic part of Serbia, has a lot of language diversity. If very few of the list entries are true exonyms, and the ones that are true exonyms are still in use, then it might make sense to just include the different language names in List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina. I'd be willing to work on that if you had any suggestions for good sources to use. Ike Lek (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to me to be a good way forward. If the list is OR and misleading then that's a good reason for delete. If useful parts of the content can be kept elsewhere, that's even better. JMWt (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invite both of you to look at Special:Permalink/1301115984 (those are current official names in different languages with official status, for those places that have an official minority language name designation). Here, in this process, however, it's time to agree to delete this fake "List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina" page that is nominated for deletion because it's originally researched nonsense as I have explained. —Alalch E. 05:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your understanding of the situation. There are many dialects in the region and Vojvodina has several different dialects - there is not just one Serbian language, and . Furthermore there's no list, but we can clearly see from this book [2] that different names of towns have changed over time. It's also worth noting the region was a frontier and was settled by different groups of people. I'm not a very fast reader in Cyrillic, so I can't speak to exactly what's going on here, but Petrovac, for instance, was a Slovak centre in the region. And Knićanin was Rudolfsgrad for a couple years after it was founded, showing that it was likely an actual exonym. It's a bit difficult, but I do think there's something notable here, especially given the history of Vojvodina. SportingFlyer T·C 08:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your understanding of the situation. There are many dialects in the region and Vojvodina has several different dialects - there is not just one Serbian language—you didn't say anything with this. Does not interact with anything I said, and no argument is included. There are multiple languages in the region first of all, starkly different languages. Hungarian isn't even in the same language family as the rest. Serbian is a Slavic language. Romanian is a Romance language. German is a Germanic language... And what about it? Who's questioning that? There are dialects of some of those languages involved too, but why even mention dialects? It doesn't seem like you have an idea of what you're talking about. Just pointing that out to you.
Rudolfsgnad is on the right side of the list, a purported Serbian exonym. But Rudolfsgnad is the native German name. It's like saying London (sr:London) is a Serbian exonym. An example of a Serbian exonym is sr:Rim for Rome. Not Rudolfsgnad for Rudolfsgnad! It is a German native name. Shortly after the territory Rudolfsgnad lies within became a part of the Serb-dominated kingdom, the name was officially changed to Knićanin, and Knićanin is the last name of Stevan Knićanin, again, an endonym. Serbs had lived there by that time and adopted "Knićanin" as the native name.
If tou want a list of "Historical place names in Vojvodina" great, create the article. This isn't it. This is nothing, it's nonsense. —Alalch E. 09:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
London is a Serbian exonym for London. It just happens to be that the exonym matches the English name for the place.

Your language family analogy doesn't make much sense regarding the notability of the list. Šumadija–Vojvodina dialect is a specific dialect of Serbian. During the time of settlement, many of these speakers didn't necessarily live in the region. I also need to say you're getting close to commenting on me, not on the content of the article.

It's also not nonsense - it appears to be an overlap of exonyms and historical place names, like Vojvodina. Furthermore, if you have a PDF copy of the book, it would be helpful to post a link so we can all have a look. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
London is a Serbian exonym for London. Come on... I can't read further than that. —Alalch E. 10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC) . . . I've read it. I didn't make an analogy, I was telling you that you are talking about some dialects yet do not even know what you are talking about, as the languages are very different and are not dialects of one another. Just a way to illustrate to you how you lack the faintest idea about the relevant concepts. About downloading the book, I potentially should not post the link because of WP:COPYVIOEL. —Alalch E. 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about right now either, apart from the fact you're directly attacking me. Taking a closer look, this page was translated into the Serbian, and looking at it more closely, the Serbian page does not mention exonyms. The Serbian page this is based on is titled "Bivši srpski nazivi za naselja u Vojvodini," or Former Serbian names for settlements in Vojvodina, Serbian meaning the language. Some of these would have been exonyms at the time. Some of them may have been exonyms in different dialects of Serbo-Croatian, but that's not clear here. If this is a list of former Serbian names of settlements in Vojvodina, I think that passes NLIST even more clearly, and just needs to be renamed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not supported by the source. Some of those names are Serbian some are not. The source does not list "Serbian names", it lists "Names". The subject of the source is not "Serbian colonization", it is colonization, and great many towns and villages are listed at the end, not looking anything like this Wikipedia list. The Wikipedia editor who created this page picked those names that are connected to extant placenames and named those non-extant placenames "Serbian". The book is not about "Serbian names" and the word "exonym" does not appear in the book. Preposterous original research. It is NOT a list of former Serbian names of settlements in Vojvodina. —Alalch E. 01:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source would not mention Serbian because the language would be obvious, though. It's also not original research as the other source shows. Also the fact you can't even point to where a copy of the source might exist is frustrating. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite is obvious. Also, what you say is not original research is in fact original research, and the "other source" shows nothing of the sort. To go back to my Lazarfeld example, in a chapter discussing German colonization of Syrmia it is stated that "Lazarfeld — today Lazarevo" is a German settlement. The original researcher takes this and says "a-ha, Lazarfeld is a former Serbian-language exonym", a statement that is not included in the book. When the writer wants to make a statement about the language dimension of the toponymy, he is explicit; for example:
Prvo slovačko naselje evangeličke veroispovesti u Banatu nalazilo se blizu Modoša, - Slovanski Bardan /Pordanj pre turske okupacije; po srpskom izgovoru Pardanj/.
transl. The first Slovak settlement of the Evangelical confession in the Banat was located near Modoš — Slovanski Bardan /Pordanj before the Turkish occupation; in Serbian pronunciation Pardanj/.

So when it is a Serbian name (Pardanj), this is explicitly indicated, and Slovanski Bardan must be inferred to be the Slovak name. Naturally, and obviously (contrarily to what you baselessly named obvious), when using non-Serbian names, the author does not specify "this is an [X other language] name", because which language is concerned is contextually tied to which ethnic group is discussed—here, the Slovaks. Also, what you say is frustrating is not at all frustrating. —Alalch E. 02:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent argument until the last sentence, which just comes across needlessly rude. I assume this is due to some language barrier. What people find frustrating is subjective. Ike Lek (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very comfortable not violating WP:COPYVIOEL and I deny anyone's feelings of frustration over that. I also properly formatted the reference and added the COBISS link which includes the table of contents.—Alalch E. 04:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you aren't in the wrong for not linking it. You didn't do anything wrong there. You did enough for them to be able to find it.

However you shouldn't deny their feeling of frustration. It weakens your argument by making you sound needlessly unkind. You could always say "I'm sorry you find that frustrating, but I am not going to violate WP:COPYVIOEL" or just not respond to that part.

This is getting off topic though. I already struck my vote, and I think the table you made better fills the roll this article is attempting to. Ike Lek (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the title of this article may be a language issue, as it is the same as a Serbian article, but I still don't know why the actual data is an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alalch E says above I have access to this source, and I can't verify that this list exists in it. But WP:NLIST doesn't say that the source has to include the list or all items in the list per: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable. I don't read the language of the source, but if it states that places exist that have alternative names in Serbian, that would appear to be a sign of notability even though it didn't publish the placenames or all of the placenames. JMWt (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous and tendentious. —Alalch E. 09:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It's a notability guideline and we are discussing whether the topic meets it. There's nothing "tendentious" I can see, particularly given that I've already agreed with you that OR content should be removed. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just explained above that this is originally researched nonsense with plenty well-argued and nicely put together examples. I'm not going to blank the page during an AfD. That is what removing OR content would be. There is no topic to speak of, the topic is a concoction. A topic of a Wikipedia list about Vojvodina place names in history could, for example, be: "List of former place names in Vojvodina" or "List of name changes of cities, towns and villages of Vojvodina". A member of Category:Lists of former place names. And this is not it. This is a fake "former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina" nothing. I have determined that the criterion is not that they are Serbian, it is not that they exonyms, and some of the right side entries are current official names in the language that they exist in. The book does not support the statements "X place name is a (1) former (2) Serbian (3) exonym of Y". A "List of former place names in Vojvodina" would not be based on that template statement at all, but would be a list of former place names, i.e., it would be based on the statement "When X settlement was founded its name was A, then it changed to B, then it changed to C, and, in parallel, potentially, in a different language it was A*, then it changed to B*, and in yet a third relevant language for the region during a given period it was A**, etc." And maybe, m a y b e would it make sense to analyze some of those names as exonyms. —Alalch E. 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, though. It's becoming more evident this is a list of former names of settlements in Vojvodina, possibly from a mistranslation. Some of them may have been exonyms at one point. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are many of them not exonyms; many of them are not former names, and are actually currently used and officially recognized. Ike Lek (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could give a couple examples. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E. already gave the examples of Nadrljan for Adorjan, and Gomboš being both not Serbian and currently used. Ike Lek (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gomboš isn't currently used, though - Gombos is, the š letter is not used in Hungarian, so the Gomboš would have been a Serbian name (and potentially an exonym.) And, despite the usage in a single article, Nadrljan is a former name according to the Serbian Encyclopedia: [3] The Serbian name was Nadrljan. This genealogy website says it was the name until 1978 along with listing many other former names: [4] which is also confirmed by the census [5]. So it's not incorrect to say it's a former name. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Maybe the page does have usefulness, but it is absolutely titled incorrectly at the very least. Especially because not all of the former names are from Serbian. Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages, and while the book is going to be useful, I find the Wikipedia list that purports to cite the book and is the subject of this AfD not to be useful. —Alalch E. 02:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every name of a Chinese city is a Serbian name because there's no Chinese characters in Serbian. —Alalch E. 02:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. Every Chinese city in Serbian is a Serbian exonym, even if it is exactly transliterated. Every language must figure out how to transliterate foreign place names into their own language - the most recent one I can remember reading about was how to spell and pronounce Qatar in Croatian language after the 2016 Water Polo finals and extending into the World Cup. SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to clarify in my own mind, @Alalch E.: are you saying that your main objections are a) the list includes words that are not uniquely Serbian and b) that the places are not exonyms? @SportingFlyer: what's the issue with a merge to the list page started by Alalch E. List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages? I'm not understanding why this disagreement is continuing. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 22 July 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch exonyms for places in Belgium

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

How is this notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the question why a list of Belgian placenames in one of the national languages of Belgium is notable? Or are you saying the page is unnecessary given that we also have Names of Belgian places in other languages? If the first, it seems self-evident that sources exist showing the names of Belgian places in Dutch and their equivalents in French. JMWt (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about the other article thanks. Sources may exist but the subject may still not be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Translations belong to wiktionalry. --Altenmann >talk 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Names of Belgian places in other languages exists and is a better page title, more likely to be found in a search, better populated with names over the different languages. Clearly a notable topic. JMWt (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that Names of Belgian places in other languages is better. Dajasj (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a lot more sympathetic to exonym lists that are confined to a territory in which the language has significant history. —Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 7 July 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. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Weird Al" fan-made videos

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

Fails WP:GNG as it does not have any coverage from reliable secondary sources. A WP:FANCRUFTy list that fails WP:NLIST. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. jolielover♥talk 17:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. jolielover♥talk 17:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. None of the items on the list have their own article. There's plenty of links in the list, but they all link to the songs, EPs, or albums, and the subject is fan-made (music) videos. Most linked articles either 1) don't mention the fan videos or 2) probably shouldn't considering the unreliable/awful sourcing used. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sergecross. Maaaaaybe this could be redirected to "Weird Al" Yankovic videography or something of that nature if Yankovic truly did endorse these videos on his website as the article claims, but I find that to be an incredible stretch. Leafy46 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Very little discussion of the subject of fan-made videos, let alone the entries having no independent entries, warrants deletion of the list without mentioning its content elsewhere. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 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 14:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST, we don't have lists like this for other entities. Unsourced since 2017. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Click on the individual named fighter jets in this one. You will find the sourcing in the individual articles. Please see Category:Russian and Soviet military-related lists and Category:Lists of military aircraft. We have many such lists, that differ in style. The sourcing etc are found in the individual lists, or articles. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it into a category. This was actually interesting enough to arouse my curiosity what it meant, but I think a category would suffice. Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not make it into a category. As a list this is not sufficently notable. As a category the intersection of "propulsion+wing configuration" is not a defining intersection. We do not have Category:Straight-wing aircraft and Category:Swept-wing aircraft, and subcategories of those would also be insufficiently defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - While I admit it is lacking as just a list without context, I have actually come across and used this page before while doing research. It was somewhat helpful to me, and I probably wouldn't have found it as just a category. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm glad it was useful, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a policy-based argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Niche list that appears being WP:OR result instead of one that helps the reader. Protoeus (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST, and do not make it into a category per WP:NONDEFINING and The Bushranger. There isn't even a main article on what straight wing is supposed to mean, only a redirect to a two-sentence explanation that appears to be sufficient. Until it is important enough for its own article section or even stand-alone article (WP:WTAF), I think straight-winged aircraft merit neither a list nor a category, let alone one for a specific former country and a specific type of military aircraft. NLeeuw (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not opposing expansion of the article but that can be done by recreating the article. Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 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. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squid Game Deaths

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

Not encyclopedic; unsourced, reads like fan content grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of the grouping can't even be established since there are no secondary sources used within this article per WP:NLIST. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, non-notable list with no secondary coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because the show has a lot of deaths does not mean all of those deaths merit mention – if anything, it shows the opposite. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inadequate BEFORE. scholar has several articles talking about death in squid game. Neither the nomination nor the above three !votes appears to have actually looked for any such discussion nor based their approach on such. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Death in Squid Game" is a completely different topic from "List of Squid Game deaths". A Death in Squid Game article would discuss how the concept is shown throughout the series and how it symbolically matters in the narrative, while a List of deaths is just an INDISCRIMINATE failure. It's equivalent to having an article on the concept of Thunder versus an article listing every single time thunder has been heard.

Even if we determined these subjects the same, this would require a complete Wikipedia:TNT, as there's nothing worth preserving from the current article. If someone wants to make a Death in Squid Game article, they can write that, but we shouldn't leave up an article that goes against so many guidelines and has no actual encyclopedic content on the chance someone may or may not write an article on something. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't mind if some writes an article about death in Squid Game and includes notable deaths integral to the plot. However, every single Squid Game death recorded will go against DISCRIMINATE. A "List of deaths in the Purge franchise" article would similarly face the same fate as this list. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 00:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Pokelego999. There's a difference between "death in Squid Game" and "list of Squid Game Deaths" (also current title is not great) grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are no encyclopedic topics that include the words "list of". Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond villains: the sources discussed the set of villains, and we formatted it into a list. As much as people like to cite TNT, it's not a reason to delete this article under its own rationale. I'll note that those advocating for deletion are far quicker to argue over nuances of topic than to, you know, actually delve into source analysis on what I've brought forward. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we draftify instead? I can maybe understand your argument (although I'm a bit skeptical of the encyclopedic value of the article's scope; the Bond example you give has a much clearer scope that's more likely to be encyclopedic), but I also think the quality of the existing article is unacceptable poor and it's completely unsourced. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citing WP:NOTDATABASE and very much crufty. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a database / catalog / directory, but a place to write encyclopedia summary-style articles about a topic. This is already covered in articles such as Squid Game season 1 in a more appropriate way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above and the list reads like a Fandom list entry. Just no. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Even without those comments, though, this is farily obviously not a suitable article by Wikipedia standards. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tulu language channels

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

LLM-generated page written in a clearly unencyclopedic style. It's possible that this could be a worthy article topic, but given this article's state, it's best to blow it up and start over. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Karnataka, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TNT. Topic could be notable, but there don't appear to be enough sources, and the use of an LLM to write this much of the page is unacceptable. MidnightMayhem 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing is poor, though with much more care and reliability of sourcing, it could be a reasonably good list article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 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 merge‎ to Ascendance of a Bookworm. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm light novels

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

Same issue as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ascendance of a Bookworm chapters. Does not pass NLIST, and without the chapter names this would easily fit into the main article. Remove those and merge back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No need for a standalone list nor chapter titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there any more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Chapter titles is excessive detail in this case. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:29, 12 July 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 merge‎ to Sword Oratoria. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? On the Side: Sword Oratoria light novels

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST and the main Sword Oratoria article isn't long enough for this to be worth a split out. Merge/redirect back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any merit in adding the content back in and redirecting this to the main article? I do see what you mean by the article being short. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I think this would be a logical third option between complete deletion and leaving the page up. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. It can always be split off again later, if merited. Metallurgist (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sword Oratoria 200.46.55.53 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, in March 2024, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, e.g. Chinese exonyms and Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... Is that it? Are Lithuanian exonyms, in contrast to exonyms-in-general, discussed collectively by independent reliable sources? Does "discussion" mean more than recognition of a well-defined (though trivial) set? —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per policy, deleting this is absolutely appropriate, but why bother? There's no way for it to be promotional or COI, and it isn't misinformation. The way I see it, someone took the time to make this page because they thought it could be useful to someone, and it could be. Why get rid of that? Ike Lek (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to follow the logic in saying that, according to policy, deletion is absolutely appropriate - the corollary to which is that the article should not exist - but then say (paraphrasing) someone took the time to make it, and it could be useful, so why get rid of it? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Weirdguyz (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be moved to the Lithuanian wiki instead. Does not serve a purpose here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 July 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 no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - What's the harm in having it?

Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the harm in having a list of Dutch words for spices or bird species or truck engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking back to this, and honestly, I don't know. Maybe those could exist? Not as stand alone lists, but Dutch names for birds could be an article that includes a list. Ike Lek (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ike Lek (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

' Delete Not really notable on English Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other noms: Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on nl.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English JMWt (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced trivia are still trivia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Which specific part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING are you claiming this page violates? JMWt (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 22 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

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

Article had only two citations, both of which were unreliable sources per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Only reason I didn't remove the second citation was because I didn't spot it. So in essence, this list article, which contains details such as numbers of aircraft in operation or formerly in operation, is completely unsourced, with the only assistance for the reader being to go to the linked articles - which doesn't count as sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you also have Airfleets [6], and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: [7] [8] So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

And for the record, yes I did make a quick search for sources myself... but as I'm not really an aviation-inclined person, I couldn't find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three books directly on the planes published at various times, but I can't access their insides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're wanting to source current lists of operators and numbers though we probably need more recent sources Danners430 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very few operators still fly this plane. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Flying is NOT a reliable source WP:SIMPLEFLYING Protoeus (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement (i.e. reliable references) is never a reason to delete an article. Fully referencing the list is something that should be achievable. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes opening an AfD is the only way to get an article improved... Like I said above, I've done a search for sources, but haven't been able to find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We can clearly source American operators from my source search. See [9] [10] We can also source other carriers - I picked two at random and there's lots out there, but nothing that is a clear "slam dunk" (like say the BBC) because this is a niche topic with niche sources. I do not know what is in this book. This looks self-published unfortunately. The problem is we can absolutely source this and it's encyclopedic but there's not going to be one source out there that isn't a niche aviation source... SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; more input on SportingFlyer's most recently-presented sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Absolutely needs better sourcing, but I think there's enough here to establish notability. Worth mentioning that there's a similar list for almost every major commercial aircraft, with sourcing of varying quality...if we get rid of this one then the rest need to be brough to AfD. nf utvol (talk) 13:07, 14 July 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. There's no refutation that the article fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

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

WP:NOTDATABASE，the article looks like data tables? 日期20220626 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, Lists, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page really has a weak point that it contains little description. But that means that the description should be added. Deletion of the whole atricle with true and virified statistics for the topic, designed in convenient form, instead of adding the description is not a good strategy.

Possible solution: mark the page as a stub. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible solution: blow it up and start over again. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a person who will start it over again. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - we have list articles for a reason. Does this article meet WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a preamble to the article. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Demographics of Belgium: where it is a perfect fit, with no need to independently meet NLIST. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an ideal solution. Ike Lek (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has 11 reliable sources, meaning it satisfies notability. Historyexpert2 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The big issue here is the meaningfulness of the numbers. The spread over the whole set is pretty small, and about the only really "valid" conclusion I can draw is that Walloons tend to die a bit younger— assuming that the residency there is even a contributing factor. This really needs context to justify what otherwise is bordering on an offense against WP:NOTDATABASE. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that this comes across as properly part of a more general comparison between the provinces/regions than as a strictly demographic dump. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my humble point of view, spread of 4 years is enough tangible. On the other hand, informatin that this spread is only 4 years but not 10 is also valuable knowledge.
A Wikipedia article must give reliable information, but it does not have to have a ready-made conclusion. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a one-off list. Many similar ones exist, like List of Mexican states by life expectancy. In fact, there is one for every large state. See "Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions". Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 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)