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 lens rehousing service providers

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Business, and Lists. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Lens rehousing is a niche but established part of the cinematography industry. This list provides a helpful reference for filmmakers, collectors, and technicians. While it's true that many of the companies listed do not have standalone Wikipedia articles, that doesn't mean the field lacks relevance or value.

The problem is nowadays most real discussions and insights about these services happen in social media groups, video reviews, and closed communities. Reliable third-party coverage in traditional formats like newspapers or books is rare for niche technical services like this. At the same time, linking to Facebook groups, X posts, or YouTube videos wouldn't be appropriate either, since those are not considered reliable sources under Wikipedia policy.

Instead of deleting the page, it would be better to improve it. Au8ust (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, so this page falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It requires context as to why this is important to the general reader. With lens rehousing not even having its own page, I doubt that is forthcoming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the fact non of the names mentioned are notable enough for their own articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - because IDONTLIKEIT and you shouldn’t either. Let’s call this what it is - a list of offensive ethnic slurs. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is an attack page that violates our no attack pages policy. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think it's anything close to an "attack page". It lists everything without using POV language, and most of them aren't even "slurs" (like Mexican standoff, a widely-used term). My issue is both a lack of notability as well as a clear disconnect between title and actual content, because "not liking it" is not a reason to delete things and I don't want people to get the idea that is what motivates the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't believe this has lasted so long, clearly not a notable topic with indiscriminate combination of unrelated place and ethnic terms. I've never heard of nearly any of these, only used in the 60s apparently. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT and poor sourcing. It's possible that a good article could be written, or a good list created, of euphemisms or even insults using names of places and nationalities. There are many with solid history and usage, such as Welsh rabbit. But this list is not the good article. To be a good article, we need to summarise multiple sources. The current list-article is merely a regurgitation of what amounts to a single source (albeit published in two episodes). It's of no encyclopedic value to the reader because it's an indiscriminate hodge-podge of things no one has said in a century alongside things that are used every day, without any distinction. To be clear: racist slurs from history are of huge significance and should be recorded, but to be useful to our reader, we need to make clear who used them, when, why, and describe their historical context and development. The article doesn't even define the scope of "derisive" clearly enough to avoid becoming merely a list of things where a nationality or place name is used in a way that isn't descriptive of nationality or place. For example, when people refer to a French kiss, are they really deriding France? Were they ever? This article is a mess, and best deleted. If anyone wishes to revisit the subject, there is nothing here that will help them. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists. Deleting this will just leave a hole of this size in the middle of the lists into which it is transcluded. Of course, listing of geographic features by size is very well-established, and this specific division is just a convenient subset of the entire list. With respect to the concern that there are items on the list that should not be there, feel free to remove those. There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities. There are more than enough countries and first level subdivisions to fill up the list. BD2412 T 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists." No, this is an article. Whether another list transcludes this or not is an issue for that list, not for AfD. This article here and now is directly readable by readers, it is categorized, it should meet our criteria for an article. "listing of geographic features by size is very well-established" across some randomly decided characteristics? I don't think so. A list of countries by size is not a problem and wouldn't be at AfD, what is at AfD (and can't be helped by cleanup) is this combination of (officially) continents, countries, and "first level subdivisions", and (in practice) everything else that someone wants to add (and that apparently not only pollutes not just this page then, but also all these other pages this is transcluded onto). Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention? Fram (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities That seems to be the case for a substantial amount of this list, though, there are a lot of Canadian islands here, and the two lists below have nearly 300 Scottish islands. These lists could be more meaningful if they don't attempt to – yet obviously fail badly – be so comprehensive. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: If there is not an objection to listing countries and their states/provinces, then removing the smaller islands is a cleanup task. The larger islands tend to be their own administrative divisions. BD2412 T 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe this meets the criteria for a speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP is not a speedy keep criterion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can read it as a "strong keep", then, but if a subset of a an uncontested series of lists is deleted because that subset is deemed not individually notable, then it would pretty much automatically be merged up to the larger list, which has not been nominated for deletion here. That would just be clean up and merge. BD2412 T 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added these two because their Prod was removed, and for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all). This is such a random WP:CROSSCAT of things, that it's difficult to tell what should even be included or excluded. I see some silly micronation on the small end, as well as a department of France, which appears to be second-level, not first, along with random islands and full nations. Why are such things combined together? It's even bad enough if you try to restrict to only first-level subdivisions, as these are rather different entities from nation to nation. This is exactly the sort of dreck that NLIST, CROSSCAT, etc., should be used to weed out. And make no mistake, there's nothing all that special about sorting by area. We could also do it by population, by number of roads, or total jellybean exports. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have such lists for population or jellybean exports because those are far less stable. If they were unchanging, it would make sense to have lists. BD2412 T 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so replace population and jellybean exports by highest and lowest elevation, number of lakes, or whatever and the point remains. Those would be stable, yet no reasonable person would argue we should have those. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in my opinion this is a really bad example of cross-categorisation, although the article(s) also transclude into List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all) and List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 0.1 to 1,000 square kilometers and the AfD templates appear to mess up the tables. There should be some discussion as to how to deal with these articles too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this by noticing (and prodding) List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer in the new pages overview. That page doesn't seem to be linked to from any other article at the moment, and had no attribution if it was copied from somewhere else either. No idea why this one doesn't get transcluded and some others do, also no idea whe the very small entities are listed here, and in the <50km² list, and in the overall list, and perhaps elsewhere as well: it's a complete mess I guess, and transcluding articles into other articles is in general a bad idea. Anyway, these other articles have the same issues as the three up for deletion now, and should probably all be nominated for the same reasons. Does anyone have an overview of which articles we are talking about altogether? Fram (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, what a long list of pages with the same issues, how has this been allowed for so many years? Lists of political and geographic subdivisions by total area... Fram (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Indian television

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given what the other "Year in <nation> televisions" articles look like (using the bottom navigation template), this seems to be appropriate to keep but would just likely need to populated with sourcing from Indian sources. I did a few spot checks and it looks like those entries can be sourced. I see no reason to delete it, since AFD is not cleanup. Masem (t) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by quality of healthcare

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. cyclopia ^speak! 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least this needs to be moved to an NPOV title like "OECD healthcare quality ranking". 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:SOURCE Not sure what purpose this serves. It seems to focus on select cancers and cardiovascular disease. But even at that, it's limited and the lone source is iffy. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. Also, it can be improved Mast303 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is evidence that the list is WP:OR, I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Lorstaking (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, currently it is not a list of quality of healthcare, it is a series of medical outcomes that can or cannot have to do with healthcare quality.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Prima facie, this is an arbitrary collection of rankings by health outcomes presented as a measure of healthcare quality. Both the selection of input variables and the inference that this is meaningfully a reflection of healthcare quality constitute WP:ANALYSIS, and as such need to come from the sources in order to not be WP:Original research. The onus to provide evidence is on those who assert that this is not original research, not on those who assert that it is. It is always impossible to prove that sources do not exist, whereas proving that they do is trivially accomplished by simply pointing to them if they do indeed exist. TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for false advertising and WP:TNT. This is a sparse, arbitrary regurgitation of random stats. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correlation does not imply causation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck diving sites of Cape Town

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Azuredivay (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these are already listed at Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area#Named dive sites. While a list of shipwrecks in the region is certainly doable, I agree that a simple list of dive sites is too database-y. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup third place matches

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:FANCRUFT. Svartner (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsure about nominator's rationale - of course an article called 'List of X matches' is a "simply a list of matches". These kind of of articles can be notable, see e.g. List of FIFA World Cup finals. However, I do not think 3rd place matches need a separate list/article. f sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable, also per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Azuredivay (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FIFA World Cup#Results, where this data already exists. Reywas92^Talk 00:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. Leo^talk 01:25, 18 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]

List of state media by country

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of public broadcasters by country. While there is a hat note explaining both lists are not the same, the inclusion criteria distinction is fuzzy and not applied at all. For several countries, the same broadcasters are included in both lists, which would not happen, in theory, if the hat note was accurate. They are supposed to be mutually exclusive inclusion criteria, and they are not. MarioGom (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to where ? Cinaroot (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

state media list is different from public broadcasters list. it cannot be redirected or merged there Cinaroot (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my rationale. This article claims they are different. But they list the same media outlets. It's effectively a POV fork. MarioGom (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if there is no consensus for redirect/merge, I'd be fine with deletion. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yah, a media shouldn't be in both. people keep adding to this. i have no idea if its true. thats why - we cannot maintain such a list. List of public broadcasters by country is written more like a article. so im fine keeping that. Cinaroot (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom can you change your vote to either keep or delete. like i noted below - Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster. This is why - im saying we cannot maintain this list. its a mix of state media and public broadcaster. Cinaroot (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That happened after a mass merge by @Cinaroot (I had been keeping the lists non-redundant) but just went back in and cleaned up List of public broadcasters by country so there should not be any duplication Superb Owl (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i just moved whats in Public broadcasting to List of public broadcasters by country Cinaroot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The scope of the article is also dubious. It lists a number of authoritarian countries that have no independent media but has provided only a few names for "state media". NavjotSR (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your point exactly but am curious to better understand your thoughts Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the advantages of lists (as spelled out on WP:BEFORECAT) is that they allow us to organize by topics like by Country (as this list is). Because state media is very much country-driven, it seems to be the best format barring some way to render categories by country. The list article seems to be more popular (gets ~10x the number of pageviews) and has been maintained much better than the categories though I have been cleaning those up as well. Superb Owl (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still support deletion.

The concept of “state media” is too broad and often disputed. Without a clearly defined and consistently applied inclusion criterion—whether it’s government funding, editorial control, legal status, or degree of independence—the list becomes subjective and unreliable. It invites confusion, duplication, and personal opinion.

Cinaroot (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Rwanda is in state media list - but in the article it says its a public broadcaster.

Same for Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation - I PICKED THESE TWO AT RANDOM

Please just delete it. I'm not sure - if this is being watched by enough editors. People will continue to add wrong media to this list. Cinaroot (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORECAT. - Amigao (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not accurate. please see my above and below comments. Cinaroot (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster.

List of professional baseball teams based in Davenport, Iowa

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional baseball teams based in Fort Wayne, Indiana

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to identify any information about this list that is secondary commentary on the subject. Most independent sources (e.g. baseball reference) simply summarize when it was made and restate the list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The best I could find was [[1]] but without more coverage this is probably a delete for me. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... doesn't seem really that notable.. as it didnt get much independent coverage.. also the list is kinda dated now. Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not notable per guidelines as it has not attracted sustained public interest at any time. I support deletion. Helikophis (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this page. Celica tom (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Daisaku Ikeda

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

Reason The page is essentially promotionnal. It consists in copy/pasting several similar lists that can be found online, for instance here and there.

Babylone444 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE —Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Lists, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the first paragraph describe his honors in aggregate, just like List of awards and honours received by Winston Churchill, and thus this meets WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this reads as promotional/in the style of a CV rather than an article of encyclopedic value. However, it does seem to technically pass WP:NLIST. I think maybe a discussion on the practice of separate awards list pages for individuals should be held in an appropriate forum. I would think it much more valuable to only list the most notable awards an individual has earned. Certainly huge lists that include honorary doctorates/professorships/citizenships etc. don't seem valuable considering something like an honorary degree is handed out for a 20 minute commencement speech. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include he most notable, and with a link to the full page. But the effort to remove this altogether isnot meant as an improvement to Wikipedia, or even to the Daisaku Ikeda entry; it is an attack on the subject. As you can see, here, an editor has appealed to an anti0Ikeda sub Reddit for help, and in the comments Ikeda is referred to as "Icky", and they celebrate the idea of denigrating his reputation. Daveler16 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of communes of Luxembourg by population

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just merge the images and redirect them. You don't have to start a discussion for something obvious like this unless someone objects. No need to delete the pages altogether either. Withdraw this and then follow WP:BOLD and WP:MERGEINIT. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, I'd merge the main list into Communes of Luxembourg too. But please do update the stats. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should have been a merge request, not an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I'm missing something, the rush to admonishment of this nominator for bringing this to AfD seems unfair. This does not pass WP:NLIST and there is no sense in merging the article into List of communes of Luxembourg because it is literally duplicitous and already covered. Sure, this probably could have been done without an AfD nom, but if editors have any doubt at all about performing a WP:BOLD delete/redirect, we absolutely should create a culture as a community which encourages them to instead come to AfD for consensus. I don't think the nominator did anything wrong. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my understanding is that the only way for non-admins to delete a page is to nominate it for deletion... Also, the thought of turning the pages into redirects had not crossed my mind. I supose I'll just do that. Procrastineur49 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect these lists to List of communes of Luxembourg. These lists do meet WP:NLIST but they're redundant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anime with Alvin episodes

(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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Internet, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither show is inherently notable given the lack of reliable independent sources for the shows themselves. There is little chance of individual episodes, or even the entire group of episodes, could also be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: There is no extant sourcing to make this a stronger article. Almost all coverage is dedicated to the main series or the chef himself. Moritoriko (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then frickin delete then, dude. Bluehawkking (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games

AfDs for this article:

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

Only two of the teams mentioned in the article are currently in the Pac-12. Would it make sense to have a List of Southwest Conference football rivalry games list article too? This list should have been merged with the main Pac-12 Conference article back when the conference had 12 members. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem great to have a list for a topic that can easily completely change, as we have seen Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of NCAA college football rivalry games would be a suitable redirect/merge target if that ends up being deemed appropriate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sourcing found in the original AFD. Changing the scope to include former Pac-12 teams is probably all that needs to be done here. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esolo5002. Notability is not temporary and just because the Pac-12 barely exists as of now doesn't make its history non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add/keep a section for the historic rivalries. We SHOULD have an article List of Southwest Conference football rivalry games. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. I disagree with Wire723 in that I think this info could be valuable with a little (sourced to RSes) analysis of common languages and concepts that appear in the etymologies. As is, though, it's not a great list -- but the info is interesting enough to try to preserve. Even better if each item could be sourced in its new location. -- Avocado (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. This is not useful as a stand alone article. It makes more sense to distribute these into the respective articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST as others have said. Also individual state welcome signs (and tourism slogans in general) generally tend to be notable with sources written about them whenever they're changed. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST this looks nice. As to the comment above about other countries having lists like this, please refer to Category:Road signs by country. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's source coverage specific to US welcome signs, see [2]. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost entirely a difficult to navigate collection of game results and WP:NOTDATABASE so I think this should be deleted. Division of the list by alphabetized country name is also strange; why not by league/division or similar? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What do I need to do improve it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  What do I need to do improve it? Can you give me advice please? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep A lot of info and very useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabzee discography

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should seem obvious, but just in case, if consensus is reached that this article shouldn't be kept, merge into Dabzee#Discography instead of deletion. it's lio! | talk | work 10:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at our relevant guideline: this list meets the requirements of WP:NLIST. The subject of the list, Dabzee's music, is notable. About half of the items are either backed up by references or by blue links to existing articles. The other half need refs or blue links to reliable articles and that can be fixed Deletion ≠ cleanup. Finally, if this information were instead merged into Dabzee's main article, it will become too large. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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