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

List of J.League licensed video games

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

Same as List of K League licensed video games, trivial article about a football league being licensed in video games. GamerPro64 04:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Football, and Japan. GamerPro64 04:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] ‹ The template below (Collapse AI bottom) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [1].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of K League licensed video games

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

Absolute trivial article about a football team being licensed in video games. And its mostly FIFA. GamerPro64 04:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Football, and South Korea. GamerPro64 04:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantial non-FIFA releases and also doesn't meet WP:NLIST. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST, btw GamerPro64 I don't know if you want to adjust your wording on your nomination from football team to football league. Regards, Govvy (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looks like WP:TRIVIA, and a mirror article of List of J.League licensed video games. Svartner (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that'll need an afd of its own. GamerPro64 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries receiving snowfall

AfDs for this article:

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

There is enough difference in this as compared to what was deleted in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries receiving snowfall (2nd nomination). However, the same arguments apply here. Mainly it falls afoul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As well it's unsourced and the "All elevations" section contains places that are not countries and it never snows in the United States. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a better review of the previously deleted list. That one was somewhat more complete than this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a total lack of sourcing (for a topic where it should be fairly easy to find sources). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's worth pointing out that the second nomination in 2007 fully acknowledged from the start (even before the resulting deletion) that, even then, standards were tighter than at the time of the first nomination in 2005 (and that assertment was actually in reference to the qualify of AfD/VfD discussions). Our inclusion standards now, of course, are much more stringent 18 years later, to a greater extent than any tightening between 2005 and 2007. A failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE then certainly isn't going to make the cut in 2025. (And any unsourced list that implies that the United States are not a country but Alaska is does not seem like anything worth retaining in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NLIST and WP:OR (i.e. by altitude—where is that coming from?). The only thing close to this is countries with the most snowfall. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate is just the word. Athel cb (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major projects in Tunisia

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

A list of whatever the article creator has found interesting, some from decades ago, some pipe dreams, most somewhere in the middle. No discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and no unambiguous, objective, and RS-supported selection criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Stations, Transportation, Lists, and Tunisia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very vague to lump diverse projects together as "major". Inherently unstable and indiscriminate – there are scores of existing major places, so it's arbitrary to combine those that are in early planning stages with some that are cancelled or complete. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article’s title to better reflect its content. I hope you understand, and I kindly ask you to remove the page from the delete list. Thank you. Elly mino2 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There need to be clear inclusion criteria and sources that describe these items as a group, as stated by the nominator and the linked guidelines. The page's contents are subjective, as they represent a variety of development types and statuses, so unfortunately I don't think it's an appropriate topic for an article here. However, Transport in Tunisia is quite short, and expansion of sections there to include future developments like these is welcome! But better in prose context than all together as a table. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article like Infrastructure in Tunisia would make more sense but it will have to be much bigger and include history. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by raspberries production

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

There is an nearly infinite number of lists, many of which do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This lump of trivia is one such. TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Geography, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NLIST, not covered as such. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Valid topic that is among the many at Template:Agriculture country lists, but new article by new user is not ready for mainspace. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it is (likely) a valid topic, but the article itself isn't ripe for mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I had not noticed, but as it stands this is actually a list by year of raspberry production in Russia. But if it was ranked list of raspberry producing countries it does not need an artcle since the information is already included in the article on raspberries. So not even worth a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Notable topic but the article is not currently ready for mainspace. Orientls (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there anything that could be added which isn't already at Raspberry#Production? Dream Focus 03:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this were formatted like other similar articles. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify just as notable as the other variants in the template navigation bar at the end of the article, but with only one country, it is not a list of countries (yet). I disagree that it's in conflict with Raspberry#Production because that one only lists the top 5 countries of one year. The other separate articles are far more detailed with many more countries and not limited to just one year. Once more countries are added, it can be moved to article space and linked under Raspberry#Production as a main article, like is done for example with Pear#Production. Punkt64 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of playing cards related anime and manga

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

Creator objected to proposed deletion. They provided sources on the article's talk page, but I'm not really convinced by them; one is a YouTube video by Mother's Basement (an obviously unreliable source), another is a BackerKit page for a TTRPG, and yet a third one isn't a meaningful source at all, but just a content tag on CoroCoro's website. The others they linked are at least from sites that could conceivably be utilized in Wikipedia, but they're all mostly discussing Yu-Gi-Oh, with a couple of them mentioning other series in passing mostly in relation to Yu-Gi-Oh. Several of the not-outright-unreliable or user-generated sources here are from WP:VALNET, and most of the rest are just from Anime News Network. The current state of the article is generally poorly sourced, and I don't see the potential state looking much better. It doesn't look like this passes NLIST. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Visual arts, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Games, and Popular culture. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no substantial change in the article after the objection from Setenzatsu.2 (talk · contribs). The issue with the user is clearly a WP:IDHT case, and I wonder why they did not receive any kind of sanction after being reported to ANI. Xexerss (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the discussion, it seems to me like they went inactive for a few days and no one followed up on it before the topic got archived. They also never responded to the discussion and didn't edit between May 21st and 25th, so I'd say it was a pretty clear case of ANI flu. Obviously this AfD isn't the right venue to discuss their conduct, but given the quite obvious WP:RADAR issues it should probably be dealt with somehow. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting first finds: There's a brief comment on the topic in this magazine; Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts, Volume II, p. 254, provides some more serious commentary on card games within anime and manga fandom, although mixed with other activities. Can anyone see if there is something relevant on p. 19 of A Kid's Guide to Anime & Manga? This web article looks at one angle of the overall topic; not completely sure if this is a reliable source. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manga: The Complete Guide, p. 122, has a sentence of comparison between card games related to manga vs. video games. Trading Card Games For Dummies has a 13-page chapter on trading card games related to anime, manga and comics. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be possible to create an article about card-themed anime and manga series (I can't think of a particular title at the moment). The problem is this list article and its poorly sourced and worded content. I don't feel like I'm reading an encyclopedic Wikipedia article, but a Fandom article or something like that. Xexerss (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even if this article topic is notable, I'm not sure a list is the appropriate way to cover it, and I think WP:TNT applies. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename to List of card games related anime and manga or something more simple. As by the discussion above, I don't think WP:NLIST is actually a problem. I also don't think this is a case of WP:TNT, which would mean that nothing here is usable in an encyclopedic article: The introduction needs sources, and then probably a rephrasing in accordance with the sources. But this is primarily a list, so that's a minor issue. The list below could nicely fulfill the purpose of navigation which is one of major reasons to have list at Wikipedia, if non-relevant examples were removed. There's enough blue links here to still constitute a proper list after such a trim. Other examples should in my view only be included if their inclusion can be verified by a reliable secondary source, solving the other issue raised in the nomination. So in total, spelling out an inclusion critereon and implementing it can save this through normal editing, which means deletion is not appropriate in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of card games related anime and manga per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No actual need for this list. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures by category

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

The encyclopedia already has many, many articles listing tall buildings. The encyclopedia also has many categories related to tall buildings.

This new article has several issues: (a) does not conform to proper title convention (should be "List of ..."); (b) 90% of the facts (rows) do not have any citation validating the facts of the row; and most importantly: (c) this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia... every time a new record is broken, this is one more list to update.

If the consensus is to keep this list, at a minimum it must be properly sourced. There is no lack of sources in the other, existing List articles. Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above AfD as part of WP:NPP effort. After making the post, I see another editor, User:Remsense had similar thoughts two weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tallest_structures_by_category&diff=1289324742&oldid=1289202581 Remsense deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to List of tallest buildings and structures. Then, the article creator returned and re-created the article.

Probably should do that same "Delete and redirect" action again. Noleander (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although if you'd like to change the article name to List of tallest structures by category, I have no objection to that.

The article says, for example, that the tallest clock tower is the Abraj Al Bait, at 601 meters. It links to an article with a list of the tallest clock towers, and another article all about the Abraj Al Bait. Those other articles have sources. Although if you'd like to add sources here too, I'd be in favor of that.

It's true that this article is a bit duplicative of all the other lists. But I think it's useful having a single article like this to combine them all, and see how each category compares to the other. One more list to update isn't that big a deal.

For those who are just joining us, this article used to be a single section of a larger article titled List of tallest buildings and structures. Here is how it looked when they were together. But it didn't really have anything in common with the rest of that article (which was the history of the world's tallest structures), so this section was recently made into a separate article of its own, and the remainder had its name changed. Remsense thought they should stay together, rather than being separate articles, which we discussed. But I don't think anyone has previously suggested it should be deleted altogether. This information has been on Wikipedia at its prior location for a long time. It does lack references, but it's a good article, it's been pretty high profile, and a lot of people have contributed to it. - Burner89751654 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comparing tall things -- the great human preoccupation. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no real reason for deletion given here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"....this list is duplicative of all the other "tall building" lists already in the encyclopedia". Noleander (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This isn't a new article, it's a very longstanding article that's been split out to a new name. I don't believe it's duplicative, the creator has been working on improving organziation of tallest building lists recently. More sources are certainly needed but there's no basis for deletion given. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant fork of other existing articles with minimal citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What about the arbitrary cutoff of five POWs? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of humorous names in mathematics

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

Essentially WP:OR, personal taste (or lack of it) whether something is "humorous" ("killing field", hilarious; "mother functor", if you pronounce it completely wrong it almost sounds like, well, you guessed it) and not a defining characteristic for most of these. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mathematics, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of unusual names in mathematics or Draftify as a new Category:Unusual names in mathematics. Describing the terms as humorous is subjective, but there is agreement among WP:RS that these terms are unusual. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do that WikiNukalito (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously subjectivity in humour, but firstly there are numerous compilations of these online, even in fairly reputable places refs 1,2,3,4; secondly many of them are deliberate jokes e.g. look at the name origin section on Cox–Zucker machine and lastly there are similar pages e.g. in mathematics Mathematical joke or elsewhere Lists of pejorative terms for people where inclusion or exclusion of examples can't be completely objective.

Feel free to change the list, but you know, have some fun too. WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this request to keep, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and references 1,2,3,4 these terms have ' been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. The items are not just personal taste, they're all in the lists in the quoted references. WikiNukalito (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure WP:OR. Azuredivay (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also delete this article? Obviously more developed than this one but basically the same idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement WikiNukalito (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really similar to this article. Azuredivay (talk)

Delete as trivial, subjective, and potentially endless. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite as fun as explaining jokes on Wikipedia... Taste is subjective but to re-iterate, these are intentional jokes, with well documented and well known stories (The 'Ten Martini Problem', Cox–Zucker machine etc etc.) or if not intentional, then referenced in articles ^[1] about such things.

This kind of list is not unusual on here either Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names, Wikipedia:Unusual articles, List of humorous units of measurement... and the criteria for inclusion is not particularly subjective either - intended to be funny or well accepted to be. If you think some entries on the list don't meet those criteria, delete them. I would have perhaps improved the list if it hadn't been flagged for deletion 10 seconds after I created it. The people applying subjective criteria are the ones calling it tasteless.

Move it to 'List of mathematics considered humorous', if that helps to preserve the sanctity of the encyclopedia which hosts articles like Breast-shaped hill and -ussy WikiNukalito (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any more subjective than List of films considered the worst? Just rename along that vein and demand the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list of films specifies who did the considering. —Tamfang (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be considered humorous by a ten-year old boy, but it's basically childish. Athel cb (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "unusual names" and rework the paragraph. Tepkunset (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of snack foods by country

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

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

btw if I messed this up please be kind this is literally the first thing i've ever done on Wikipedia and i'm trying my very best SapphicVibes (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination, due to someone making the article into a redirect. - SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8:39 PM] SapphicVibes (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article that is the subject of this nomination is not and has never been a redirect, as best I can tell. (Shortly before this nomination was started, List of brand name snack foods was blanked, redirected, and partially merged into this list, which may be what SapphicVibes is referring to.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale was given. The article seems just fine, even if it's incomplete. MarioGom (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT. "Snack food" is inherently vague and subjective. Also, while some entries may be quite well associated with a specific country, many are going to be associated with multiple, sometimes very controversially so. And if you don't think that sounds likely, go weep at the history of the Momo (food) article, which is under CTOP restrictions for crissakes. Also delete as a WP:CFORK/WP:CROSSCAT of the main List of snack foods. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of snack foods. I agree with 35.139.154.158's concerns that the lists duplicate each other and that sorting by country is unideal. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Talk:List of snack foods. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. feel like if we had dozens of separate articles on snack foods for specified countries, those would not be a problem. Don’t see why having as a list is. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Unnecessary" is a subjective opinion and is not a policy-based deletion rationale. If I had seen this earlier, I would have closed this discussion but there is a Delete argument now. Still no consensus so I'll let this run a little longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Very vague and as stated above, could be put into List of snack foods. Specific categories with snack foods by each country could also work. Fine with the information in the article being kept and transplanted elsewhere, but I don't think the article needs to exist. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

^ https://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/things-with-silly-names/

[1] ttps://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/things-with-silly-names/

[1]