Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Shortcut

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

List of Sony Bravia televisions

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

Lengthy list that doesn't provide notable coverage of any individual models. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. MidnightMayhem 09:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Products, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates

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

This completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former CBS television affiliates

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

This completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former NBC television affiliates

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

This completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former The CW affiliates

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

This completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated in the nom, this is just an ever-changing directory with little to no in an encyclopedia.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former ABC television affiliates

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

This completely violates WP:NOTDIR. We should not be actively trying to keep track of former affiliates of a broadcast network along with unnecessary details and cruft, especially when this content is almost impossible to properly cite and manage onto a table. To be incredibly blunt, this page should have never been created in the first place. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of irregularly spelled English names

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled places in the United States, this awful list has nothing that's irregularly spelled, only irregularly pronounced, except it's all subjective. Moreover, many of these names are not even English.... Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how a list like this could be anything but opinion. The collision of germanic and latin (french) influences in english make "irregular" spellings the norm. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what should be done about this, but at the very least I would say remove everything that does not cite to a source specifically describing the spelling as irregular, which might be just about the entire article. I note as well that some of the entries are for regularly spelled names that are purportedly pronounced irregularly. BD2412 T 01:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Besides, any such list that doesn't include Cholmondeley is hopeless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results breakdown of the 2025 Portuguese legislative election

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

Unnecessary. Article will, when the results are known, contain the same information as contained in the constituencies articles. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. As far as I can tell, the article fails WP:A3 as it has no meaningful content other than simply listing the parties that will be contesting the election in each constituency, content that can easily be depicted on the main article. Only one results are known can the article be meaningful. As such, it should be a draft until that point. Gust Justice (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The page has info on lists by district, as not all parties contest all districts, plus registered voters per district. Also, as the election is just one month away, the page is already created as when results come in, it can be updated by the minute.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Jitendra Chaudhury

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable national-level leader, detailed history is already merged with the article Jitendra Chaudhury. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 00:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Lists, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duplicate of content at Jitendra Chaudhury#Electoral history. No need for separate article. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Obi2canibe, already includes in electoral history of Jitendra Chaudhury, not need to have separate article for it. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty pageants of Korea

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

This is by and large a compilation of unreferenced statistics that becomes both duplicative of existing pageant articles and a WP:INDISCRIMINATE coatrack for other trivia. Many debates over massive lists of pageant placements like this have occurred and consensus is that they should not exist. See history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants for examples where dozens of such articles were deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom rationale here, as this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia which is a violation of WP:NOT. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Lists, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom seefooddiet (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American & Canadian Truck Manufacturers

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

Completely unsourced list which fails WP:NLIST and appears to consist entirely of original research. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, Canada, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author tried it in draft space already; see the history of User:PeterbiltDude/sandbox. Of course we have this content already, as I pointed out, at List of truck manufacturers and other articles. I don't know why they removed the comment, reinstated the poorly formatted list, AND put it up in main space in this rather terrifying condition. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list is entirely redundant given List of American truck manufacturers exists already. Plus it looks like the "sources" were linking to other Wiki pages based on page history.Waluigithewalrus (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waluigithewalrus if you think im trying to copy the other pages I'm not. American & Canadian truck manufactures is supposed to be a better list since the other ones have alot of mistakes. I would try to fix them but that would be considered vandalizing. I hope we can talk about what to do to make my page better so it won't get deleted, also just letting you both know I'm new to this editing thing so I am always accepting of any help that you guys might offer.

Kindest Regards,

PeterbiltDude PeterbiltDude (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there are mistakes, there need to be reliable external sources (see WP:RS for what qualifies at reliable) that corroborate the information you are changing. Doing a mass change of information with no sources will frequently be considered vandalism. Your sources on your page include a truck resale website and two already existing Wikipedia pages, neither of which can be used as sources. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CycloneYoris, there was a list for sources/references. However for some reason it got deleted. I have re-added it. PeterbiltDude (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: images uploaded as "own work" clearly are not. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN. The references are circular. 2 are just to other articles and the other one is to the search function for a website to buy and sell used trucks. The page creator has now had several issues that bring up WP:CIR concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

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

A 2018 RFC found consensus that: "...Wikipedia should not have these lists, due to the excessive detail and maintenance required for keeping a local version up to date of data which is available directly from airline websites anyway. Basically, the arguments in Wikipedia is not a directory." This was later upheld in a 2024 AFD discussion specifically related to the list of United Airlines destinations. In light of that, I propose deleting this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations found that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cited RFC is overruled by latest consesus. Axisstroke (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game websites

AfDs for this article:

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

There are multiple reasons why I’m proposing this page for deleteion. Wikipedia is not a web directory WP:NOT / WP:WEB. Also this list has become unrepairable out of date. Further the articles that should be included can change daly: new websites and websites going down and changing data. Further there is in my opinion no way that this list can be accurate as there is very litte reporting on such websites so it’s impossible to know what (big) pages currently exist. And as a last point there’s the category Category:Video game websites which this list provides no benefit over. Squawk7700 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. Strike it down. λ NegativeMP1 21:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include why I think it should be deleted now after two uncompleted AFD’s; I think during the last two discussions the field of such websites has been significantly smaller where such a list could have been maintained. But now the field is unmanagable. Squawk7700 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why should this list be maintained on Wikipedia? First, the list complies with WP:LISTPURP: Information, Navigation, and Development; it has independent sources, which complies with WP:LSC; this list has an important complementary role, including for the creation or expansion of articles about games. Improvement is preferable to elimination. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a corresponding category, so it seems like a valid navigational list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list, offering more information than a category can so more useful. It only list those that have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 01:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per A.WagnerC. If the list needs updating, update it. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE; I agree that the article state isn't good but there are similar lists like List of music sharing websites. Keep. IgelRM (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim of significance, unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if this can be speedied but it appears to be a combination of WP:G2 and WP:G7. If it can't, I think these are still good reasons to delete after AfD - it's indiscriminate information that would require considerable effort and WP:OR to assemble into a reliable list and nobody is likely to do that. Even if they did, it would be almost instantly out of date. JMWt (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly specific title LMFAO. Clearly do not pass WP:NLIST Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nearly 10 yr old list, with only three countries listed. Very likely speedy deletion material... It looks like an unfinished stub draft that got pushed into mainspace then forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:DAFT. Incredibly specific. — E_F⁵ 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Previous AFD was opened by article creator and sole contributor and should have been considered a WP:G7 request. OZOO (t) (c) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of date and unsourced list, and as the VPN industry exists on secrecy and is a consolidated space (several services are owned by a group of companies), it's doubtful we can even get true and reliable statistics about this in the first place. Also generally these 'market share' articles usually contribute nothing to the reader and are WP:PROMO. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of racism-related films

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

A list with an unclear scope and no citations except one to IMDb. "Racism-related"? I doubt this passes nlist - for the first half of the list, it is almost entirely about racist films, and the latter half is almost entirely antiracist films, a topic sources would cover differently. This was proded some time ago with a suggestion to merge or redirect to Films about race. I do not care either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst I see it might have taken work to devise this page, it seems to be based on the mistaken idea that anyone else would find this useful - clearly with weak parameters almost anything could be included. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NLIST. Race-related films are indeed a thing as noted by the nom, but racism-related films sort of blurs the line between films that accurately call out race and those that have racist rants. Realistically, the article would be called List of race-related films. Conyo14 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and a too-vague criterion. An argument could possibly be made for List of racist films and List of anti-racist films. P.S. Gone with the Wind is racist, but so are most older films; that is just a routine, taken-for-granted element and not a central part of the film, unlike say The Birth of a Nation. Also, Triumph of the Will and Hitler's Children are fascist, not racist per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unclear, broad scope, fails WP:NLIST jolielover♥talk 20:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornado-related deaths at schools

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

Fails WP:NLIST, as much as I love tornado-related lists. E_F⁵ 21:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST and WP:SALAT for being too specific. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking ever since the new article came out that this one was weirdly written and now is redundant. Merge to List of schools struck by tornadoes, which covers an overlapping and broader topic and doesn't have an exceptionally WP:SYNTH-y section of original analysis. Departure– (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even say that list meets WP:NLIST, but that'd be for another discussion. — E_F⁵ 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST, although I wouldn't be opposed to a merge as Departure suggested, it's an overlapping topic and it might have been better for List of schools struck by tornadoes anyway. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per its falling short of WP:NLIST. A proper merge or redirect article could be a good summary for this discussion too. Unicorbia (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Wye Valley

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

Fails WP:NLIST, completely uncited (which in itself isn't a reason for deletion, but NLIST makes up for that). E_F⁵ 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, England, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feel it would be better to convert into a navbox. /over.throws/^✎ 15:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some rivers/valleys it is easy to source the set of places connected to them. I could not source this particular one. Ironically, a lot of the sources are about "nature" and "outdoors" and "countryside", and going walkabout for approximately 200km. They speak of churches, pubs, and paths; rather than towns and villages. Not even William Gilpin has a coherent list that I could find. What little we could do in this regard is already organically grown by mentions in the Wye Valley and Wye Valley Walk articles. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom - maybe the Wye Valley page can include a section with names of these places if such detail is needed.... Asteramellus (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of irregularly spelled places in the United States

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is near-completely uncited. Inclusion guidelines are also second to none, is "Chicago" really spelled that weird? I hate uncited IPAs, so this list is basically my worst nightmare. E_F⁵ 14:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly notable for accent in those with irregular sense of stress to more common word (only!). However must change this to irregularly pronounced and most of the articles give citations. My only beg is that if this list is going, even as pronounced (not spelled), US affectionate people of any such places/people check all the places linked as wikilinks have the right way to say (in IPA-en_c template) phonetic alphabet next to their name. Too often a visitor ends up in a pickle trying to say a small town name that is utterly the weirdest compared to a namesake in how it's said - and so suffering. In fact most probably have merged ways these days but even knowing that is to be celebrated, marrying old and new folks alike.- Adam37 Talk 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awful largely unsourced list. Adam37 is correct that the spelling is perfectly regular, they're just pronounced differently, but it's entirely subjective what's an irregular pronunciation. As a few examples, I was not aware that Bangor, Maine had a different pronunciation – are any of Bangor#United States different? The respellings here for Albany, Georgia are both different from what the article uses. Aberdeen, Washington appears to be the same as Aberdeen. Some are borrowed foreign names whose pronunciations are localized, but some are accurately adapted like Chelan County, Washington and simply stress a different syllable than what one might expect (lots of Native American words that someone is making a statement to call irregular...). Others are apparently pronounced exactly as I'd expect! Really not sure what's supposed to be irregular about Pittsburgh or Samish Island or a lot of others. Some just reflect a local dialect's elision of a letter that wouldn't be irregular to them at all. Anyway, the list is a lot of subjective original research and unsalvageable. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list based on entirely subjective means that will never have any form of consensus on inclusion criteria. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snoe delleet for failing WP:NLIST and all of the above. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really? Albany is spelled weird? Aloha? The entire city of Berlin? Worgisbor (congregate) 22:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nothing. List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom, a sibling article, has London, of all things, and Sandwich, Kent as irregular for having the same U.K. pronunciation as "sandwich". Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92. This is a mixture of names from a lot of languages most of which are perfectly regularly spelled. There's not really a coherent definition of "irregular" that one can apply in the United States of America, where place names come from so many sources. About the only irregularity that one could verifiably document is place names that have not adhered to the federal government conventions such as removing apostrophes for possessives. But that is not this by a long chalk. Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, this is not a list but a heap. Also, it fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just pure WP:OR and has no clear inclusion criteria. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a horrible mix of original research, creating a list out of the thin air, and making a how-to soap box based off of one's opinions on proper English pronunciation. In dicta, I would also delete List of irregularly spelled English names, which birthed this monstrosity. Bearian (talk)
Delete WP:NOTEVERYTHING is of relevance here. Even if properly sourced, encyclopedic merit of this is questionable. It might make a fun bar trivia game or educational tool to engage students in a text book, but not suitable for a global encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the epitomy of everything that Wikipedia should not be. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:349D:5A9B:E71D:DB35 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet. Bekoz itt iz stewpid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ignoring the fact that the list is just weird pronounciations and not weird spellings, this list is almost all original research. Can't believe it has lasted since 2013. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 22:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Individual accidents are talked about, but not a list of accidents. E_F⁵ 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other wikipedia ‘list’ articles formatted exactly like this one, list of deadliest rail accidents, list of serial killers by number of victims, list of deadliest tornadoes in America, perhaps discussion should take place on how to improve an article if deemed to be substandard instead of jumping straight to deletion. 208.96.108.139 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether it's formatted well, it's whether it's notable. Unlike list of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas, List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents, etc., this one is too specific. — E_F⁵ 16:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page could be fleshed out a bit more with some context/connective tissue, but WP:NLIST is met as the topic in general has been covered by RSs, including the Canadian Encyclopedia [1] since 2014, and by news sources after the 2018 Humboldt Crash. [2]. Both sources lists also generally correspond with what we have, so it seems the scope of the page is probably okay. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there has been coverage of deadly traffic accidents in Canada in general. With that said, we might consider renaming it to "List of traffic incidents in Canada" or something like that, and then merging any related articles that are based entirely on contemporary news coverage into it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed heritage

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

This page is a complete mess, as shown by the multiple tags on it. The first section alone (about Egypt), features a pyramid partly demolished in the 12th centure, but still standing 800 years later; and stolen objects, which may or may not have been destroyed. For many of the more modern buildings which have been demolished, there's nothing to suggest they were particularly important heritage buildings. It may be better to split this up, and have separate articles (where they don't already exist), but with clearer criteria. Blackballnz (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Blackballnz (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: a list of destroyed heritage (sites? culture? the lede is conflicted) appears compatible with WP:STANDALONE, and the size and edit history of the article indicate some appetite for its existance. is deleting the article the best action, or would a judicious scrub of irrelevant or uncited materials, like the pyramid or modern buildings you mentioned, not suffice?

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: page could use some curation, but it seems ok. More than just a list of bullet points, there is some discussion around each item in the list. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OaktreeB. Each entry has to be sourced though. Azuredivay (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything on the list that links to an article confirming the information presented, should remain on the list. I see there is an image of the Great Sphinx of Giza, but no entry for it. The article says "destroyed" in its name, not just damaged, although some entries show things that were only damaged. Having the name List of tangible heritage objects or locations destroyed, damaged, or stolen would be too long though. Dream Focus 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is not grounded in policy. The list does need work, but that should be done through the talk page. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename List of destroyed or damaged cultural heritage to address the first of the nominator's objections. The second can be handled by removing ineligible entries (e.g. theft), which I have done. Splitting into sublists (e.g. war-related, natural disasters, buildings vs smaller objects, etc.) is a separate issue from deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not in favor of the current list nor re-naming it, to include "damaged", because that word is subjective. On the other hand, "destroyed" is pretty objective: it's gone, it's not there anymore, other than rubble or a faceless, limbless, and genital-free sculpture. I would support keeping it if someone made a real effort to rescue this by taking out the objects that have been "damaged" (whatever that means) but not destroyed. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While I do believe this article could definitely use some cleaning up and re-organization, I think it is a profoundly important list article that should be retained, it's issues should be improved upon, not deleted. Damaged items, however, I think should be put in their own section of this article, removed from this article, or given their own list article, except when referring to items in a set. AvRand (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and focus on improving its quality. — Sadko (words are wind) 06:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative list of World Heritage Sites in Turkey

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

I think this should be merged with the List of World Heritage Sites in Turkey, as with other country lists. Leo^talk 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you do that then? The administrator deletion tool forms no part of the article merger procedure. This is Articles for deletion. It's in the name. Ironically, article merger takes one fewer edits than an AFD nomination. Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Uncle G, I just did it but I'm not sure if I did it right. Leo^talk 22:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tentative list of World Heritage Sites in Turkey. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to itself? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect it to itself! Solves all your problems at once! —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it Tentative in the very title should mean a speedy move to user space. —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of World Heritage Sites in Turkey. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs playable in Fortnite Festival

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

Per the last deletion discussion for this type of article, there is almost a unanimous agreement that this should not be on Wikipedia. While there are sources discussing songs being added to the game during major collaborations (e.g. seasons), there is no critical commentary regarding them, nor is there any significant-coverage. And the majority of songs don't get any coverage regarding their announcements regardless. The majority of the list is also unsourced. This article fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Note that there is a key difference between a list like List of songs in Guitar Hero II and this: the songs playable in Guitar Hero II was a worthwhile split that met WP:NLIST and was fully sourced, and also basically served as a DLC list. This is not the case here, as songs in Fortnite Festival are effectively cosmetic items and a list like this would be like a "List of Fortnite skins" article. I also think a merge of the songs list into Fortnite Festival would similarly fail GAMEGUIDE/GAMECRUFT, so I'm proposing a flat out deletion. Also, this isn't something that should probably be on Wikipedia, but rather a playlist on some other site or fandom. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The places that we do have lists of songs for rhythm games generally try to be more than just a list, like reasons for selection or reception, in addition to nearly every song being covered by RSes. I know that the headliner acts for Festival are noted but definitely nowhere close to even a small fraction if songs, nor have I seen commentary related to reception or how songs are chosen. Masem (t) 15:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, this is contrary to the consensus decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Fortnite Festival as well as violating the policies listed by nom. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This may not be popular opinion, but I believe that song lists for all video games are WP:GAMECRUFT, regardless if they are rhythm game or not. OceanHok (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 This is likely eligible as title evasion to create the article under another name; somehow remembering the former article this is even worse than the original article deleted because it's just a long contextless playlist of songs, in addition to in-house background music just being thrown in here too to overload it. Nathannah • 📮 15:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear consensus at previous AfD and no reason why this should have a different outcome Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems like everyone's on the same page, and as the pages creator I don't think I can give a fair opinion. I also lack the ability to defend the articles existence, as well as the previously made points.AlexEditsStuff (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your maturity and understanding. I remember the first few articles I created on Wikipedia got deleted but I persisted and am still here over a decade later. It takes a while to get to grips with our notability guidelines but having a good read of WP:GNG and WP:N will go a long way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt all of this title. Idk if this count as G4 but clearly not suitable per WP:NLIST. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Delete, but I don't see why it should be salted. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RedactedHumanoid here, so do Delete RonJonThe8th (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fortnite Festival; the list is excessive but which major songs are available os relevant for the game. IgelRM (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above jolielover♥talk 07:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have been a Speedy Delete even. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no longer any point in keeping this one. desmay (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. The discussion there impacts this discussion as well. - jc37 09:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important list. An editor from Mars (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I voted Keep on List of films in the public domain in the United States. These lists are invaluable for a base of information checking and completing filmography articles and lists, etc. Especially if we are creating a table of works list for any bio article. They are also helpful in pointing us towards other information we might need when we create an article. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hardly indiscriminate; this is a highly defined list and passes WP:NLIST as the subjects are discussed as a group in Hurst, Rossen, Kehr and other sources in the article. Also passes WP:LISTPURP (and is useful to boot). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason has been given why INDISCRIMINATE should apply here. It's a list of films that are 1) animated and 2) in the public domain in the United States. That is very specific. Cortador (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Doctor Who is an iconic series, and nearly every iconic series has been parodied at some point; there is no coverage indicating that parodies of Doctor Who specifically are notable. The overall topic has no coverage: All GNews hits are from unreliable sources or trivial mentions, while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular. There's absolutely nothing indicating the notability of this subject, and none of the spoofs individually appear to be notable either given the lack of strong sourcing for all of them. This subject completely fails notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular: Dancing with the Doctor has a multi-page chapter dealing with the subject, "Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy". A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories reviews one parody in-depth, The Reign of Turner, but also discusses Doctor Who spoofs more generally on p. 171 (and presumably 170). It does have an ISBN, does not look self-published to me at first glance. Is Houston Press unreliable? Daranios (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A list of parody moments is in general a much more dubious proposition than a list of parody works—the latter being particularly suitable for a WP:CSC #1 (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.) kind of list, assuming there should be a list in the first place. If we are going to have such a list, I would be in favour of keeping information about each parody to a minimum on the list page, relying instead on the link to the article about the parody work for the details of the parody.
I took a quick look at the sources linked above by Daranios (or more accurately, the parts Google Books decided to show me). I would note that The Reign of Turner (IMDb link) does not currently have a stand-alone Wikipedia article and based on a quick search for sources likely does not merit one. The other linked source is a bit difficult to assess as Google Books rather severely limits what I'm able to see, but it mentions (at least) Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch, and "From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love". The first and last of those are explicitly described as specials (a Doctor Who special and a The Sarah Jane Adventures special, respectively), which seems a bit dubious to describe as "parodies" without further qualifiers or elaboration (one might term them "self-parodies", perhaps).
I would also note that there is a Doctor Who in popular culture article (which is, it should be said, not in great shape at the moment). It is not immediately obvious to me that we should have separate articles for parodies and other types of cultural references. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a stab at reducing this to a list of parody works with stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think. At any rate, we should not be listing parody works, parody moments, parody characters, and parody in-universe media together—that's just sloppy article construction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not sure I agree with the recent extreme "cleanup" of the page (including removal of all the sources!!!] but that might be a different issue (I can't see why different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be inappropriate; quite the opposite). Anyway clearly meets WP:NLIST. Sources presented above could seem sufficient. The topic is also addressed in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age (p. 102-104, for example) Also see sources like https://templeofgeek.com/list-of-doctor-who-parodies-and-doctor-who-inspired-music/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/24/no-doctor-who-sketch-in-comic-relief-this-year-you-can-watch-one-of-these-instead-6508088/ One can also add a Game Rant list (that CAN be used to expand the article, that's what WP:VALNET clearly states). Among missing titles in the list is Doctor Whore (https://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Porn-Parody-Series-Exists-Compare-Casts-66875.html ; https://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18633654.html?%20Series)) so that (re)-expansion seems AT LEAST possible -Mushy Yank. 09:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be a third approach, different both from what the article was like when it was nominated (which listed different types/levels of parody alongside each other, not grouped as such) and how it is structured now. Whether it is a good idea depends on whether that's how the sources treat the subject—parody works and parody characters (and so on) are different concepts, so if sources only discuss one of them if would be inappropriate to cover them together here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notability, and everything else can be solved through normal editing. With regard to The Reign of Turner, if it is discussed in secondary source(s) but not enough to be notable, it is suitable to be included in a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M and such. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this in a larger context, like Doctor Who in popular culture, on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that's again a discussion that can be done outside of the deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there are arguments to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel so far, there has been very little sourcing discussing parodies as a whole, which is required by WP:LISTN to establish independent subject notability. So far the bulk, if not all of the sources, have been merely listings of ones that exist, or coverage of particular ones; nothing has thus far lent itself to showing the entire overarching subject is notable. I'm still not convinced that this meets notability right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pokelego999: What would you say to the argument that a purely navigational list—i.e. one that only contains links to parody works, not descriptions of them or coverage of the overarching topic as a whole—need not meet WP:Notability per WP:Stand-alone lists (specifically, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.)? TompaDompa (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @TompaDompa in the article's current state it's so small that I don't see if having any navigational value, especially as a standalone article. At best it should be a section of Doctor Who in popular culture and nothing more. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright, that seems like reasonable position to take vis-à-vis this list fulfilling WP:LISTPURP-NAV. I am also personally skeptical that anybody looking for e.g. the article The Curse of Fatal Death would do it through this page. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:ATD. Articles need WP:SIGCOV, and claims only go so far. In terms of navigation, links already exist at the main Flashpoint (comics) article, and we could even add them to the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list has no sources included that are not just the comics themselves, and none of the keep votes have offered a valid argument for how this passes WP:LISTN. Any notability for the Flashpoint (comics) series itself does not automatically extend to justify listing a multitude of minor characters that have no reliable sources that actually discuss them in any meaningful way. The few characters that were central to the plot of the comic are already described at the main article's plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a list, don't think meets WP:NLIST. And I see that many Categories exists around these characters, which is good enough for grouping. Asteramellus (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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