Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

WP:DSLISTWP: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

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slovene exonyms

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Slovenia. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I replaced the link that generates a warning with a safe older archived version and added the official government source for these names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another reference from the corresponding article in Slovenian to demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sole reason stated for deletion is apparently that an external link had expired, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Hungary-related articles

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

23 other pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Asia, Syria, Yemen, Europe, Hungary, Oceania, Latin America, South America, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary collection. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geogarphy, Liberia, and Senegal. Dege31 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, they look like valid navigational pages that just need work - if these are the "worst of the worst" they're not that bad, really, even if they do need some work. The Index of X-related articles goes back to the early days of Wikipedia as a navigational link, so I'd prefer an RfC to try to figure out if these are still useful and how to make them useful, and then we can delete them after that if they're not, but at the moment these do look like they pass NLIST as valid navigational pages. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've needed 'some work' for 15+ years. They may be valid navigational pages, but the nominated ones are almost totally unmaintained. LISTPURP gives three main purposes: information, navigation, development. How do indices that have received minimal maintenance at best for 15+ years fulfill these purposes? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly like navigational content to me. Once they're finished, they need limited maintenance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're far from finished, is what I'm saying. Dege31 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason for deletion, that's a reason for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am claiming the required cleanup is (at the moment) realistically impossible! Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. I do not believe alphabetical indexes like these are valid or useful navigational pages. They are typically incomplete, poorly maintained, and duplicate other pages, categories, and navboxes. Outlines like Outline of the Dominican Republic and navboxes like Template:Hungary topics are substantially more useful than alphabetical listings like this. We have a search bar, so I've always been confused what the point of pages like this was when there is no organization or context, just an alphabetical list of links. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Marathi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del. Seconded. Not TV Guide, no encyclopedic content. --Altenmann >talk 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Pokémon anime characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Popular culture, and Japan. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. I feel like it's possible that the characters from the Original Series may be notable, as mentioned in the nomination by Consarn, due to the heavy prominence of that show, but in terms of every Pokemon anime ever made, certainly not. This list is simply too broad, and WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Zx and Consarn. This thing is a behemoth of a mess, and I feel you can probably count the list of even slightly notable characters from the anime on one hand, and most of those are already spun out. What we have here instead is trying to cover too much at once and at the same time every little detail, making it impossible to justify WP:LISTN and violate WP:NOT at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday night NRL results

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to see it is anything other than WP:LISTCRUFT. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on article to indicate why Monday NRL games needs a separate article. Mn1548 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination. TarnishedPath^talk 08:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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

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

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

List of Bemani musicians

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

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

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

List of gangs in Australia

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese exonyms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian exonyms

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or Serbia delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani Turkish exonyms in Georgia

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

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

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

there is a lot of sources about it

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

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

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

List of Azerbaijani exonyms

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

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

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

there is a lot of sources about it

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

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

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

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

And Dutch exonyms at least. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In March 2024 there was an attempt to delete all of them, which failed as too sweeping. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak exonyms (Vojvodina)

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

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

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

List of Hungarian exonyms (Mureș County)

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

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

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

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

List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch exonyms for places in Belgium

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

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

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

List of "Weird Al" fan-made videos

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

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

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

List of Soviet straight-winged jet fighters

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

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

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

List of Squid Game Deaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but there are no encyclopedic topics that include the words "list of". Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond villains: the sources discussed the set of villains, and we formatted it into a list. As much as people like to cite TNT, it's not a reason to delete this article under its own rationale. I'll note that those advocating for deletion are far quicker to argue over nuances of topic than to, you know, actually delve into source analysis on what I've brought forward. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we draftify instead? I can maybe understand your argument (although I'm a bit skeptical of the encyclopedic value of the article's scope; the Bond example you give has a much clearer scope that's more likely to be encyclopedic), but I also think the quality of the existing article is unacceptable poor and it's completely unsourced. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citing WP:NOTDATABASE and very much crufty. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a database / catalog / directory, but a place to write encyclopedia summary-style articles about a topic. This is already covered in articles such as Squid Game season 1 in a more appropriate way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tulu language channels

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

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

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

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

List of Ascendance of a Bookworm light novels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge into the main article. It can always be split off again later, if merited. Metallurgist (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

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

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

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

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dutch exonyms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you also have Airfleets [1], and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: [2] [3] So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

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

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

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

Weak keep We can clearly source American operators from my source search. See [4] [5] We can also source other carriers - I picked two at random and there's lots out there, but nothing that is a clear "slam dunk" (like say the BBC) because this is a niche topic with niche sources. I do not know what is in this book. This looks self-published unfortunately. The problem is we can absolutely source this and it's encyclopedic but there's not going to be one source out there that isn't a niche aviation source... SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. This is not a one-off list. Many similar ones exist, like List of Mexican states by life expectancy. In fact, there is one for every large state. See "Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions". Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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