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

50 State quarter mintage figures

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

Pre-nomination research (WP:BEFORE): Before submitting this nomination, I carefully followed the steps outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE to search for reliable sources that could demonstrate the notability of this topic. I began with a search on Google News （https://www.google.com/search?q=50+State+quarter+mintage+site ）to check for any substantial media coverage of the 50 State quarter mintage figures. Most of the results turned out to be either official press releases or brief mentions, and I could not find any in-depth or independent reporting focused specifically on the mintage data. I also consulted JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=50+State+quarter+mintage&so=rel) to see if there were any academic publications on this topic. However, the search yielded no relevant results. Finally, I reviewed the official United States Mint website, but this is considered a primary source and does not qualify as independent secondary coverage under Wikipedia’s standards. Reason for deletion: Based on my research, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG). There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that would establish the subject’s notability. The article relies almost entirely on primary data from the U.S. Mint, with no substantial secondary analysis or commentary. Additionally, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability policy (WP:V), which requires that information be supported by reliable, independent, published sources. Given the lack of such sources, I believe this article should be considered for deletion. Although the 50 State Quarters program itself is notable, the specific mintage figures alone do not seem to attract independent attention significant enough to justify a standalone article under Wikipedia's guidelines. Cuicuizan (talk) 07:06, 4 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. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 50 State quarters - I created this as a WP:SIZESPLIT fork of Washington quarter mintage figures (itself a fork of United States quarter mintage figures), but I think the information can easily be integrated into the main article for the 50 State quarters. Whatever happens, I recommend including America the Beautiful quarter mintage figures in this discussion since I created it for the exact same reason. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia)

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

Non-notable list with insufficient context. 90% of entries are listed as "Coming Soon". PROD was removed by the author. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable list and a very applicable WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely comprehensible per Wiki standards. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of obsolete technology

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

This article has very few sources. I looked at the sources online and there doesn't seem to be many reliable sources covering this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd probably !keep this if the items were sourced... This is too long for an unsourced article and seems willy nilly as a list. Typewriters and a toasting fork? Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A better place would be the list fandom. I have copied over the complete editing history of this article, all 167 revisions, to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_obsolete_technology Dream Focus 19:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful reference list in the history of science, not merely a fun collection. I majored in Science, Technology, and Society in college, and when considering theories of technological invention and adoption, this field is often driven by case studies. I did a DDG search for "obsolete technologies" and got a ton of listicles, so creating a list like this is definitely not an original idea. Listicles are not reliable sources, but all the listed items have articles and are mentioned in history of technology articles, and it's perfectly possible to go through and pull reliable sources documenting that each specific technology has been partly or completely replaced by others. Yes, when lists like these are scoped to the entirety of human invention, technologies in very different fields will be included. Typewriters and toasting forks share an interesting attribute in common; when you collect a few of these technological case studies into a coherent theory, you get books like The Innovator's Dilemma. We do have List of emerging technologies, which similarly requires compilation across all of human invention scoped to a specific attribute, and we've managed to do an excellent job sourcing that. List of obsolete technology is currently being a list of examples to illustrate the Technological section of Obsolescence, but could be better organized and linked with throughlines in other articles. For example, we have History of timekeeping devices which describes the obsolescence of several listed items; I'll link that in now. If this is kept, I can work on pulling in sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the listicles actually do come from sources WP:RS/PS marks as reliable, like this one from Gizmodo. If publications covering the state of technology find it useful to make collections of notable obsolete technologies, it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to have the most comprehensive and well-referenced version of that, which combines the lists and individual examples from a variety of sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad a criterion. MS-DOS, floppy disk, ship of the line, chariot, corset, icebox, rickshaw, slide rule, etc., where does it end? Every technology becomes obsolete eventually. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of technologies haven't and won't forseeably become obsolete - knife, shoe, mirror, bicycle, loudspeaker. At bottom, the list should be limited by notability - technologies that don't have a Wikipedia article don't need to be listed. But well before that, technologies can be grouped by type and a link provided only to an overview article. For example, List of emerging technologies doesn't list every single product or specific invention in a given emerging area (e.g. genetic engineering is listed, not CRISPR). So List of obsolete technology doesn't need to include everything in, for example, Category:Discontinued software, but should look more like a list version of Category:Obsolete technologies. The benefit of a list over a category is that a list can add context as to why a technology was abandoned, mention the replacement technology if any, and be sortable by date. -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of technologies haven't and won't forseeably become obsolete - Knife, shoe, mirror, bicycle, loudspeaker. What is the technology of a knife? The material used? The method of production? The blade shape or sharpening method? Is a knapped obsidian or flint a knife? Is it obsolete? There are some niche applications (e.g., surgical) where obsidian blades are used, does this mean they're not obsolete? – We can have the same discussion on shoes (clogs? hand-stitching of shoes? lotus shoes?), on mirrors (polished bronze mirrors? tin-mercury mirrors? there are also certainly changes in mounting and other features that could be listed as well), on bicycles (those before pedal power, the penny farthing and others with vastly different wheel sizes, pre-pneumatic tires, changes in gear technology, wheel construction such as radial spokes...), or on loudspeakers (see this article by a specialist source or this review of 50 years of specialized publications...). Unless there is a significantly better framing for the article I struggle to see how this article can be kept. That there are other bad lists or categories on Wikipedia is not a defense for this article. Shazback (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT, as there's absolutely no reasonable way to decide what qualifies as "obsolete". The claimed definition in the lead isn't even remotely adhered to in the body of the list (and doesn't make much sense anyway). Indeed, a significant portion of the entries on the list even admit that they're still in use, so are they truly obsolete or not? And as pointed out above, this is so broad and universal (in the way that practically everything becomes obsolete eventually), that's it's essentially useless to readers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, listicles don't count toward demonstrating notability! They're low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about notability of the individual technologies or the idea of technological obsolescence? Each of the individual technologies listed needs to demonstrate notability independent from being obsolete. The general idea that technologies become obsolete is certainly notable apart from listicles - it's well-studied academically, including case studies and comparisons. See for example, the huge number of Google scholar matches. Beland (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of technological obsolescence being notable in no way justifies the existence of this list, which is what I'm claiming isn't notable (in addition to being too broad and ill-defined in the first place); see WP:NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any issues with notability. With the rise of AI and other technological advancements, this article is only going to become more important. Shankargb (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is ... not a valid keep rationale. Pure WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ITSIMPORTANT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I'm pretty sure that this unwieldy list has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It also fails WP:LISTCRIT, which reminds us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists.--DesiMoore (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very unnecessary list. If this was actually every single major obsolete technology it would be going on for a lot. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a highly subjective list which seems to be entirely self-contradictory: a list of technologies no longer used ("superseded by newer technologies") but with a column in the table showing where each is still, in fact, used - sometimes "frequently"! It is one great big mess of original research: who is it who decided that these entries are indeed obsolete rather than complementary and/or not just evolutions of the same technology they supposedly obsoleted? Where is the sourcing for any of the claims and explanations presented as fact? What is there now should be removed promptly, and it should not come back in anything like its current form. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very vague criterion. What constituate as a "obsolete"?. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strong delete. The definition of the list itself is strongly lacking ("obsolete" is defined as "unavailable from the manufacturer in accordance with the original specification"... which is not relevant to technology which does not depend on an individual manufacturer -- then again, "technology" is not defined either, so really it's a guess what can be included). WP:BEFORE reveals there's very limited discussion of this as a topic, with most articles being listicles on high-tech related topics, usually focused on electronic devices, and many of these articles are really nothing more than opinion pieces, with no actual discussion of the criteria used, or actual analysis of why the elements listed were selected or measured for "obsolescence". Further, this is an article that contradicts itself plenty of times, requiring a column named "still used for", clearly demonstrating that plenty of the items listed are not fully obsolete, just niche or less common applications, as well as an entire section on "co-existing technologies"... All in all a case where deletion is in my opinion required. Shazback (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

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

This list is currently not suitable due to the lack of notable things named after him. Due to recent political changes, the names of notable establishments have been changed. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles on things named after people like Trump and Obama are obviously notable because they are some of the most famous people in the world, but I don't think so with Bangladesh's founding father! Just ask a random person on the street if they know who Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is and they'll probably say no. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sub-continent can say who he is...his importance and his legacy as Bangladesh, an independent country. Secondly, every head of country, former or present are notable individuals. Above logic is laughable. Drat8sub (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for providing no valid deletion reasons. A lack of notable things? Multiple entries have their own articles (I've added more). Whether or not some of them have been renamed is irrelevant. Also, An editor from Mars's argument that Rahman is not as famous as Obama or infamous as Trump is very Western-centric, contrary to Wikipedia's principles. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at the edit history for user An editor from Mars, because he always votes to delete for no reason in particular Codonified (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have said keep before. An editor from Mars (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Just ask a random person if they know who Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is. In Bangladesh or India, the answer would be yes. What a silly rationale for deletion. Renaming things does not erase history.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m afraid this nomination doesn’t make any sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. The whole Indian Subcontinent atleast knows his name. Also the argument of nominator "Due to recent political changes, the names of notable establishments have been change", just use the term " formerly known" in the article. Imwin567 (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep according to you since the recent political situation in Bangladesh regarding Bangabandhu, this means we should delete everything related to Bangabandhu? Also your perception is completely wrong, notability is determined through secondary independent reference, which Bangabandhu has due to him being the founding and first head of state and government of a country Codonified (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable....and for the nominator WP:NPOV is a thing in wikipedia and wikipedia certainly don't allow WP:SPECULATION or WP:OR. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. We have similar other articles like List of things named after Donald Trump, List of things named after Guru Gobind Singh and more. ZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's cult of personality. Only few items in the list are left now. This doesn't make any sense for a separate article. Merge it as a section, it will also improve the quality of the cult of personality article too. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteen is a "few"? And that's not counting the four you deleted (as renamed), which I have restored. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not updated. I'm sure it will be not more than 10 if it is updated.

Should the 4 item be restored?? Then what the other deleted items did?? More then a dozen items were also removed before my edit, Does your undone make any sense???? Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cease your deletions. The consensus is obviously against you. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 4 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]

2007 World Twenty20 records and statistics

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

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

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

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

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

Per precedents set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 FIFA World Cup statistics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics. WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is not a statistical database. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: the title has statistics only, but the pages are actually statistics and records as well. In the previous AfDs linked above, they were cases of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and important records already being in the parent articles - none of which applies here. Everything in these pages are well-sourced. Vestrian24Bio 16:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only 2024 Men's T20 World Cup statistics for above reasons; Redirect/Delete others as they are a clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS and merge very important stats to season articles. WP:AS is not an issue. Veldsenk (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League venues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST for a standalone list and is a case of WP:NOTSTATS. Re-creation of a previously deleted material by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Premier League venues. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my rationale at the previous nomination. No improvement whatsoever since the deletion, so I am satisfied with the previous judgement. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:NOTSTATS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, fails to meet WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 16:04, 4 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities named after states they are not located in

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

Declined PROD, which was declined by an IP (possibly a sock of the author). List does not appear to satisfy WP:NLIST, and topic reeks of WP:OR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside Missouri City, Texas, all of these cities are appropriately named to their region, next to a water or natural feature the town is named for, or ended up in another state because of geography and politics. Not really needed and reads of failed OR. Nathannah • 📮 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. This is a bit of trivia almost nobody really cares about or has noticed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' there are cities named after states in which they are not located . Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of sources mean it’s guesswork, i.e OR, as to what the cities are named for. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worse than that. It's erroneous guesswork. Delaware, Ohio for example was named after the (exonym) Delawares who were removed to there, not after Delaware itself. That was the first one that I checked, too. I'd be surprised if any of this article were accurate at all. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I come on behalf of the citizens of Florida, Orange County, New York, Florida, Montgomery County, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, and Florida, Ohio to say i feel bad when a newish editor gets their work deleted, but its not personal. It just doesn't fit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic and is trivia. I think this one is obvious. Ramos1990 (talk)

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 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]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BAFTA Award for Best Animation

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

Content split from BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film. It seems the category was discontinued in the early 80s and re-introduced in the 00's (as can be seen here. This is not a valid rationale for splitting out content. It is the same category, and the content should be kept together so that readers have all of the information in the same place. If the article needed to be split out for size reasons (which wasn't the case here) it was important that the article split did not create the false impression they were seperate categories. The split-off version is superfluous in any case now because I have reverted the split on the parent article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've finished editing the article BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film to reflect the changes that were made at BAFTA Award for Best Animation (table year numbering, etc). So I think BAFTA Award for Best Animation can now be safely deleted. Nick R^Talk 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was the award always called the BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film? If so, then this spinoff doesn't make sense because it's making up an award name/category that doesn't exist. If it was ever called the BAFTA Award for Best Animation then that might make a spinoff somewhat justified unless there's coverage stating that the award was specifically retitled to Best Animated Film prior to the shorts spinning off on their own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if the BAFTA does refer to the older awards as Best Animated Film then that would work against a spinoff. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's possible that the BAFTA website's awards archive has changed/simplified the awards' historical names from what they originally were, for convenience in searching.

But I'm not sure how to confirm if that's the case, and if so, what the awards' original names were. The BAFTA website's "Heritage" section contains images of the ceremonies' original brochures from the 1950s to the 1980s. But the only one that shows any interior pages with award names is the first one from 1949; the others only include covers (e.g. the 1950s page). Nick R^Talk 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete, open to Redirect/merge. If content has been copied to the other article this needs to be kept for attribution purposes. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No content has been copied from this article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nick R states in an edit summary "Incorporating changes that were made while the article was at BAFTA Award for Best Animation. ...". That to me says content was copied. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles used different date terminology, so Nick R made the article internally consistent. The other changes were formatting fixes. As far as I can see, there isn't any new content that was copied over which requires copyright attribution:
Pre-split version I restored: [1]

Version with Nick's formatting fixes: [2]

I am not sure I agree with the date fix because it makes the article inconsistent with the BAFTA source: https://www.bafta.org/awards/film/animated-film. However, this is not something that is relevant to the deletion discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick R. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors arguing for a Deletion be open to a Redirection or even a selective Merge? To what target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies heavily on primary BAFTA sources but lacks substantial independent academic references that establish its standalone importance.Krishnpriya123 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. (No strong preference.) We don't need separate articles just because the name of the category may have changed — if the function of the category remained consistent, then we just need one article that covers both phases of its history at its current name. Since the same information is already reflected in the existing article anyway (and already was, it just hadn't been converted to table format yet), we don't need this to be forked out just because of a name change. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 4 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to List of breweries in California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mrfoogles: Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. This will remove about half of the listings and leave only the ones that are notable enough to have their own article. There are enough notable breweries in the county to justify an article listing them. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:48 19 March 2025 (UTC)
There is also Beer in San Diego County, California#Notable breweries as a merge target. There are fewer than 20 notable breweries and we certainly don't need a standalone page for just a bulleted list when there's this article and the statewide list. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not keep, where should this be targeted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several possible Redirect/Merge target articles. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of breweries in California retaining only notable ones. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of breweries in California: It makes more sense to merge list with list I think. Both lists should be trimmed of non-notable shops though. Moritoriko (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of breweries in California: Agree with Ajf773 above - None of the other counties have a separate page. Page for List of breweries in California is big, but as suggested above, it can be trimmed to keep only notable entries after the merge. Asteramellus (talk) 00:59, 3 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 Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Does not need to be deleted. OCDD (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the league article. Once there's something of depth to add here it can be re-created, but at present there's very, very little that's worthwhile Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a list, so it does not have to meet the GNG or receive significant coverage. It only has to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per NLIST. The few sources in the article are enough to confirm that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources on the page does that. Vestrian24Bio 04:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. WP:BEFORE was not done. Veldsenk (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries with people on postage stamps

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

IMO fails WP:NLIST, not to say pointless: each and every country has people on their stamps. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless list with no source discussing the subject (and why would they; that would be like a "list of people with spinal cords"). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second AfD for this page. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps back in 2022. The page has been moved several times: from the creation of the page in 2002 until 2015 it was List of people on stamps, then it was List of people on postage stamps until 2020, then Lists of people on postage stamps until 2022, then Lists of countries with people on postage stamps. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source for the claim that all countries have people on their stamps? It sounds believable, but I would like to see a source just to make sure. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Beside the point. I a not writing an article and I made a reasonable guess. The one who wrote the list must find sources that discuss this particular list criterion. Otherwise next thing we get List of countries with birds on stamps, List of countries with buildings on stamps, List of countries with behemoths on stamps. In other words, my major claim was "fails WP:NLIST", and no, I do not have a reference for that either. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Just for the record, this page does not start with List but Lists, i.e. it's a List of lists. I'm actually inclined to keep it under a better name. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ouch. Anyway the process of getting rid of its members is underway: List of people on the postage stamps of Israel is gone, now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sudan. --Altenmann >talk 10:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a deletion of Lists of countries with people on postage stamps should not pre-empt those other deletions. As long as they're there, a list of lists seems valid. Geschichte (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of people on postage stamps by country and keep. It's a valid organizational list for these countries' lists rather than a topic under this title. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep per Reywas92 as a navigational page/list of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. User:Geschichte were you going to voice an opinion for a specific outcome? By the way, an AFD can not close as "Move" as that outcome, as it is renaming, is an editorial decision that is done after a closure. If this is your choice, then "vote" for Keep and then a move discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how. Please see Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. If the individuals are cultural icons, they sometimes have stamps in more than one country. Elvis and John Lennon come to mind. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes, it does: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." On top of this, see what redirects there.Hell and Back. And Booze, Broads, & Bullets.. And two other yarns. So, yes it does clearly have merit in terms of navigation. -Mushy Yank. 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As if references about one the most famous and notable book series in the history of the genre were hard to find....WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and to refer to it regarding such a highly-and-universally-praised work as Sin City is not very necessary. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sourced now. And easily improvable with the tons of existing sources about the set or the individual books. And no, these are no ’subplots’!!!!!! -Mushy Yank. 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly accept a merge of an edited version to help the main article. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plots are missing PRECISELY because they are there as a SPLIT.... -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like ~~Vote~~. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just open the 4 first sources, for example. They have a link to the page of the book with significant coverage about the topic, as a set. Which is what NLIST requires. More sources exist. Feel free to create pages for other individual yarns, that would not make this list-page less useful. (I might add the page number to the ref template when I have more time but already spent a lot of time on this). -Mushy Yank. 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my delete !vote, I would also accept a merge as a compromise and an effort to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first blush I thought, "It's just a list? Then why not merge with the article about the series?" Then I read it. I found it educative and convenient. This is listed as "comment" and not "keep" because I don't have something more closely related to WP guidelines and policies than that I think the readers can make good use of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@Darkfrog24:. Actually WP:NLIST is probably the guideline you are looking for; apologies for quoting it again, adding emphasis (mine), though:"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Best. -Mushy Yank. 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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