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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.

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[edit]

List of tornadoes by calendar day[edit]

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

This is a cherry-picked list with no specific criteria. The article name is highly misleading as one would expect every tornado that occurred on each day to be listed (which is impossible). Dates on this page have mention of certain tornadoes or outbreaks without any mention of multiple other tornadoes or outbreaks of equal or greater significance occurring the same dates. Since not every tornado event can be included, this article is misleading and should be deleted. United States Man (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) United States Man (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No reason has been specified for deletion. Noah, BSBA^Talk 03:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by. I gave a reason but it seems that was not carried over into the discussion for some reason. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. I don't understand why we need to know what day of any particular year a tornado occurred. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly inane. Tornadoes don't have any correlation to specific calendar days (except for there being fewer on February 29). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the rest, this list fails the criteria for a list on wikipedia in several ways, one of which is that it's arbitrary, another that it's an unmanageably large set.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion is not clean up. The races televised are very much list cruft, but the sourcing for the year-by-year is sufficient. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was clean up, I questioned the reliability of sources per WP:RS. Not to forget Bornon tried to add new sources, they still do nothing for notability. Better make use of Fandom and put this list out of its misery. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, one is a dead page and three of those are about the announcers, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, failing WP:LISTN, and as a trivia list. Conyo14 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of listed buildings in Dundee[edit]

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

As noted by Dunarc on the talk page in Feb 2020, the listing of hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parish of Dundee arbitrarily divided between sequentially numbered sub-pages clearly violates WP:NOTDATABASE. For the US equivalents of the list of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state, we divide the lists by state to give no page more than 150 entries, even dividing the New York list between the sites within and outside New York City to trim the list length. Similarly, we divide the United States National Register of Historic Places listings by county to avoid more than 200 entries per list. If the number of listed buildings in civil parish of Dundee is too numerous to fit in a single article, then it dilutes their claim to a gigantic list article under WP:NBUILDING. Thus, the fact that these sites are listed buildings should be reserved for Wikidata attributes, article categories, and infobox markers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these six sub-pages for violating WP:SUB to host the contested mainspace content of Dundee's listed buildings across arbitrary divisions to avoid excessive length:

Lastly, under the same argument that if article creator Multichill could not identify a rational way to split the hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parishes of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, as they did when creating similar, smaller list articles through a combination of manual and bot editing in May 2012, then these massive list articles arbitrarily split across sub-pages should be similarly deleted. In talk page archives, Multichill received criticism from multiple editors for this approach to list creation, admitting that with hundreds of listed buildings in these four civil parishes, there is no clear way to present the content. None of these lists appear to be widely referenced in wikilinks, aside from their inclusion in their respective cities' navboxes.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing an European country with the USA when it comes to historic buildings? These are old cities with a long history and plenty of old buildings. Lists are more like List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets.

Can you please clarify what part of WP:NOTDATABASE is "clearly violated"?

WP:NBUILDING seems to apply if an article about every building would be created. These are lists and not lists of all buildings, only the ones that are listed. Each entry links to a page describing why it's listed. Lists of historic buildings are notable.

So the only thing left is how it is split up, I have a link for that one {{Sofixit}}.

@Dr. Blofeld and Nyttend: I think you worked on this back in the day. Multichill (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I cited WP:NOTDATABASE in regard to the arbitrary division of hundreds of listed buildings across sub-lists. Second, you are correct in arguing that WP:NLIST is more relevant than WP:NBUILDING, and WP:NLIST defers to the WP:LISTPURP guideline to keep informational lists. Whereas Manhattan is a rectangular island amenable to demarcating landmarks by their street number, the next closest geographic distinguisher for these four Scottish cities appears to be postal codes, which adheres to the relevant AfD precedent (see below). Do you think this would work? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello from Dundee! I would say that the arrangement of the Dundee lists really is pretty arbitrary - they bounce around the city at random, and they often don't use the common names for the buildings so it's hard to recognise what's what. Historic Environment Scotland is where I'd normally go to find this kind of information - it has maps, descriptions and often pictures. Maybe reducing the list to just the few buildings that are likely to have Wikipedia articles would make more sense? Adam Sampson (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. These are part of a comprehensive series of lists, nationwide (I believe) or common throughout the country. Deleting the lists for just a few bits of the UK would be preposterous. Moreover, for US lists, we typically subdivide by neighbourhood, or (if nothing else will work) by first letter: "List of listed buildings in Glasgow: A", etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for the work Multichill and you did creating these articles on listed buildings! Looking through the AfD archives, I found WP:Articles for deletion/Listed buildings in Liverpool kept the list of Liverpool's >2500 listed buildings by splitting entries based on the city's 25 postal codes. The DD postcode area has eleven districts for Dundee, the AB postcode area has twelve districts within Aberdeen, the EH postcode area has twenty districts for Edinburgh, and the G postcode area has 57 for Glasgow and its surrounding towns. I think this approach to splitting will be more effective because many of the listed buildings are officially named with the address, rather than a distinct name of a former business or occupant. Thus, alphanumeric sorting and sub-division may result in confusion if consecutive entries between 1 Sample St and 2 Example Ave are on opposite ends of the city. Your thoughts? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting is indeed not optimal (just last week, I added a few pictures for Edinburgh, and I had to spend quite some time to find in which lists the entries were), but this is not the reason to delete. I would advocate arranging the lists by street name alphabetically (smth like List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/A-B), and where it does not apply make a separate list. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a decision on alphabetical reordering, I would be willing to help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nyttend. Listed buildings are notable and a tabled list is the way to go in cases where there isn't enough for an article. I would rather split the list alphabetically rather than number them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strange. When we have articles on individual listed buildings we're told by some editors they should be redirected to a list like this. And when a list like this is created we're told by other editors that we shouldn't have lists like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless replaced by a set of better organised lists - eg by council ward or Community Council Area. Alternatively could all the tables be put on a single page (not a single large table)? - but this may not meet other guidelines. These lists were very useful in the early days of Wiki Loves Monuments. Although there is now an upload tool linked to a map for the competition, it can still be useful to see listed buildings in an area (particularly in towns which only have a single list). AlasdairW (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for re-organisation – I had been planning to do so with Glasgow. Completely agree that the current divisions are arbitrary, illogical and do not aid navigation in any way. However, it is appropriate that such lists exist, and there are too many to keep them in a single article for cities of this size. I propose that these instead be split between council wards – not perfect as the boundaries can change (though there hasn't been much change since multi-member wards were created in 2007), and there will be great disparities between them (e.g a handful in Greater Pollok (ward) and hundreds in Hillhead (ward)), but it follows both consistency on this site, where non-urban areas have been divided geographically into civil parishes without much objection AFAIK, and on the British Listed Buildings website, which would in turn make it much easier to re-organise the entries with something to refer back to. There would also be a manageable number of articles. Open to suggestion on alternative criteria; alphabetical order is not ideal in my opinion as many of the entries begin with building numbers and are known by multiple names, in many cases it would still be very difficult for the average reader to find entries (or at least, it has been for me when I've had to do so), albeit I realise many also won't be familiar with what ward covers what area either, even in their home country / city. Crowsus (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was alphabetical order of the streets (which is also not ideal, because there are sometimes multiple streets, and sometimes none, but better that it is now). Wards are also fine but then someone should go ahead and propose the structure, I have no idea about wards of Edinburgh for example. Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Kalgoorlie-Boulder[edit]

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

Proposed merge into Goldfields-Esperance newspapers. As far as I can see, all of these papers are already listed at the linked article. Does not seem necessary to me. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Australia. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though a merge may be the outcome of an AFD debate, there are other venues for proposing mergers. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this is my first time proposing something for merging. I'll have a thorough look for information on merging articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 17:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Goldfields-Esperance newspapers per nom and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The amount of information available on the topic suggests it would be better handled by using the larger geographic scope. Sdkb ^talk 17:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging per Sdkb. Lorstaking (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Information about the viewership averages for the MLS Cup dating back to 1996 has now been added to the bottom of the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Presidents Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a dead link and the other two is a YouTube link; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Golf, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN, all the sources I found were press releases or WP:ROUTINE mentions. This is just WP:TRIVIA. Conyo14 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If this list isn't wildly out of date now, it eventually will be. Dislikes on Youtube cannot be reliably counted anymore. The last deletion discussion decided to keep it for so-called "historical relevance", but I don't see how historical relevance justifies having an article that just progressively worsens with no hope of fixing it unless there's a chance of YouTube returning the dislike count. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing has changed since the last AFD attempt. There is sufficient coverage of this topic even if dislikes no longer exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Nothing has changed and ever will change about Wikipedia's list, which means it's always going to be inaccurate and eventually won't be able to provide any list that is consistent with what reliable sources consider to be "the most disliked videos". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Since allegedly there is still an extension to check dislikes.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The extension is merely a very rough estimate and will never be a reliable source. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since this list's topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. That said, I think a requested move discussion might be worth it. The addition of something like "(2010–2021)" would help make the title much more precise at this cost of a little concision. I hope that would address some of the nominators concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that article needs to be renamed as there are still videos that get dislikes to today despite not being publicly available. Some sources to justify WP:LISTN would help. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any RS coverage of “the most disliked YouTube videos” post-2021 would most likely be referring to the current most disliked videos in reality. If you can find sources that justify maintaining a list that only goes up to 2021, I will reverse my deletion request and instead start a move request. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter how trivial this whole subject sounds, it is still notable and there can be no policy based reason to justify proposed deletion. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request is not based on “triviality”, it is due to the fact that we cannot reliably

update the article to align with reality. If the dislike count were returned by YouTube, I would support keeping the list but certainly not now. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to update the page is not a rationale for deletion. Anarchyte (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it is. Like I said before, YouTube dislike counts are still growing, and are most definitely are overtaking some videos from 2021. But Wikipedia cannot definitely say what videos exactly are now the truly most-disliked. Ergo, "List of most-disliked YouTube videos" is a misleading title, and a list Wikipedia can no longer present. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The valid deletion rationales don't change between AfDs; there's always the same list of reasons. Please see WP:DEL-REASON, and note that "cannot be updated" is not one (another piece of reading could be WP:WIP). Anarchyte (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some news sources post-2021, they’re all regurgitations of the wikipedia list, which I guess could be notable enough considering that RS coverage of wikipedia does recursively get articles on wikipedia itself. After considering the matter further, I’ll retract my request for deletion but I will push for a Moving of the article to a title similar to List of most-disliked Youtube videos up to 2021. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last f o u r nominations. Anarchyte (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first three nominations are all pre-2021 and unrelated to this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Anarchyte (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that we are obliged to update the article does not make sense because updates will eventually be provided by the users who are taking interest in the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot be updated. It is impossible. Dislike counts are no longer viewable. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by color combination[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, better suited via categories and galleries at c:, since we are not a list of galleries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've always been a big fan of the nom's work on the encyclopedia but I've got to disagree with Koavf on this one. This is one of the more useful list articles out there and I don't think the deletion rationale sufficiently articulated how this fails WP:NOT; this is just a list article. The terms "gallery" or "galleries" never appear at WP:NOT nor do any of the ctrl+f search results for "list" point to anything that would make this list article problematic. What makes this one different from other list articles? All due respect, I think the original research claim will need some substantiation, too. Is it original research to state that the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc all consist of the colors green, black, red, and white? I believe we do the same thing on the article Pan-Arab colors, so I don't exactly know what makes it different when it's in a list article format. Is it original research to state that the Flag of Germany consists of the colors black, red, and gold? Is the original research part saying the same thing about the Flag of Belgium and categorizing them both under the black, red, and gold section?

This isn't to say the article being discussed doesn't have room for improvement. It has quite a lot. But the biggest problem it faces is that it lacks a defined inclusion criteria, and that's something that can be fixed through a simple RfC, not an AfD. Maybe after this AfD is over, assuming the page isn't deleted, I'll suggest some possible criteria and start a request for comment. Some no-brainer criteria could be that you need to cite reliable sources to add a flag if it doesn't already have a standalone Wikipedia page.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. See WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article that discusses things, but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does "This is not an article that discusses things," not describe all list articles? As for "but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guidelines you're citing certainly don't apply here, for the following reasons:

because "any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (WP:OR, under Acceptable Media, Section 3.3),
because the list is "organized", "selective", and flag colors play a non-trivial part in vexillology (WP:TRIVIA, Section 3),
and as User:Vanilla Wizard above puts it, the list "assists with article organization and navigation" (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Section 2.4.2) in ways that Wikimedia Commons couldn't do better.

Also, notice that this is the 2^nd nomination. There's a reason the 1^st one didn't pass. – Ahmadiskandarshah (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some color combinations (such as red, black, and green) are significant, the vast majority of these have no clear significance, so grouping them together inappropriately implies meanings where there is none. For instance, the flags of Brazil and Connecticut are in the same section, but they use colors in different ways (i.e., green is a reference to the House of Braganza for Brazil while it is used for grapevines for Connecticut, at least according to their Wikipedia articles). The lack of references in this article gives some indication of how meaningless these groupings are; where references exist, they tend to focus on very surface-level observations (example) and do not comprise significant secondary coverage needed to show notability. To address some of the counterarguments mentioned here:
- I believe the comment about lists that assist with article organization and navigation refer to lists of lists and the like, where the lists are solely intended to direct readers to other articles, not to be a destination of their own. (Note that it mentions those lists are solely made of internal links – they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
- While it is not OR to determine which colors a flag uses, it is inappropriate synthesis to group them together and imply connections between them: Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
- WP:NOTGALLERY is absolutely applicable: Articles are not photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context (which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
- I agree that most of this is WP:TRIVIA. There may be meaning to some color combinations, and those would be non-trivial vexillological facts, but in that case those combinations can simply be mentioned in their own articles or as a small section in another article. The rest are irrelevant.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Invitation Tournament postseason broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series announcers[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Baseball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ReliaQuest Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of those are about the Bowl games in general, one is about the BCS National Championship. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This doesn't meet WP:LISTN as this grouping is not covered in secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sourcing from [1] and [2].
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404. That source that is not a press release is a dead link. All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Texas. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN is not met as these broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

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

There was an AfD on this previously that determined to keep this article on the basis that AfD is not a place to resolve sourcing concerns. I think there are sourcing concerns with respect to notablity, which is a valid reason to bring an AfD. I can't find any reliable article that actually makes comparisons between different AMP stacks. The two sources in the article are about individual stacks, and don't make any comparisons between different stacks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LAMP (software bundle) and redirect those that relate to AMP variants to LAMP (software bundle)#Variants. As HA has said, this article does not make any meaningful comparisons, so I don't see any objections against its inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere. I'm also pretty sure that we can find reliable sources that tell us these softwares are *AMP stacks for that platform.
After merging, redirects without mention can go through G8 or RfD later. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post; and the rest are merely announcements, some are WP:PRIMARY. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. If sources are found to prove this meets WP:LISTN, please ping. Conyo14 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgethedragonslayer (talk • contribs)

List of Little Caesars Pizza Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is neither a YouTube video or a dead link; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of the ESPN articles is about the Bowl or BCS games, not exclusive to this and the rest is about the games itself with the broadcasting element being given a passing mention. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Michigan. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Also, the editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liberty Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides a YouTube and a dead link, one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, one needs a Flash reader and thus inactive. Of the news scans, one is about the game itself, one is an announcment and one redirects to the home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Also, the editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alamo Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, barring five Wikipedia articles; two duplicate source is about the BCS game itself, not just this. One is about the Bowl games itself, one is about the coverage of the Bowl games and the rest about the game itself with the goverage being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Texas. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armed Forces Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a dead link; four (a duplicate source of two articles), is about the BCS game in general, not just the broadcasting of this and one has a brief info about TV information and five of those (a single source), although a WP:PRIMARY, now a dead link. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Also, the editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holiday Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; is about a switch from ESPN, which should be in an article about the game itself, not a list of broadcasters. Additionally, one is a YouTube video, one is about the BCS coverages in general, not just this and though all of those are about the games itself, the broadcasting gets a passing mention. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and California. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might as well mention relevant AfDs proposed that can seen on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football

This is no part in trying to minimize your efforts but more so hope the effort is unionized across the board. I want to imagine alternatives to deletion are possible before a deletion is ruled out. A redirect back to the relevant bowl could suffice. – The Grid (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me more, how is this done? SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Independence Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a 404, one are announcments of the BCS coverages, not just this. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Louisiana. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fiesta Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about the BCS games in general, not just this, one is a 403, three of those talk about the BCS and Bowl games in general one is a TV schedule listing and one is about one of the announcers in general, not the boradcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Arizona. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gasparilla Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, this game gets a brief mention, the rest are TV schedules. In all, not doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Florida. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of First Responder Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, two of those are blogspot posts. Of the four ESPN press releases, two of those are TV schedule listings, two of those is about the 34 Bowl games, not just this which gets a brief mention. In all, not doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the rest are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawaii Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; as with the ESPN sources, one redirects to the main page whilst the other is a 403. The other two are news report of the game itself, so not doing much to assert notability, which is used to argue about the notability of lists like this. One is a YouTube video, the one of a local paper leads to an error message. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Hawaii. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC College Football personalities[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College Football on NBC Sports#On-air talent. This list is already covered there as it is WP:TRIVIA more so than an entire article dedicated to it. Conyo14 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College Football on NBC Sports#On-air talent: Coverage does not exist for WP:LISTN to be met as a standalone article. Let'srun (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Army–Navy Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is mostly unsourced per WP:RS, barring a dead and a Wiki page. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conference USA Football Championship Game announcers[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, all but one, a WP:PRIMARY is sourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game announcers[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an important college football bowl game, with sourcing from [3], [4], [5]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Citrus Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redbox Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Idaho Potato Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS, with one now redirecting you to the front page and another being a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a storied history on CBS, see [6], [7], [8]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poinsettia Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS, with one being a dead and another a blog post. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Mexico Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with the only one being a dead source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Military Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being blog posts per WP:PRIMARY. (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Las Vegas Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aloha Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one being a Tripod page. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop-Tarts Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one dead and another a forum. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pinstripe Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peach Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No sources, unclear significance. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks reliable sources, supporting deletion. Waqar💬 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music City Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Birmingham Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and lack of any sourcing to establish notability. I so vote despite the nom's annoying use of an anticipatory third-person plural future tense advisory. Cbl62 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator removed the language I found problematic. See diff]. Probably should have been ~~stricken~~ rather that vanished, but I appreciate the response nevertheless. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as part of the feedback because I thought it won't wash well with future nominators. I had added it in, being fed up of the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT votes I was getting from this selection of voters (they come to keep vote on my AfD, even for the most trivial reasons). SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani[edit]

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

Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not needed. WP:FORK. Page Priyamani#Awards_and_nominations has the list of awards where necessary information can be merged to. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as noted, all awards are already covered at Priyamani, and the list is not long enough to justify a split. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unwarranted fork. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of TVB series (1977)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of TVB series (1977)

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

Fails NLIST. Found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 01:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the list can be kept for a navigational purpose, but at the current state it's way too short. Seeing the 1978 & 1979 lists aren't that long, is there a possibility of merging the three lists together to form something like List of TVB series (1970s)? S5A-0043^Talk 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with keeping this list for navigational purposes. I've explained below why this list meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists. According to the Chinese Wikipedia article zh:無綫電視劇集列表 (1970年代)#1977年, there were 24 TVB series in 1977. This page can be expanded to be as detailed as List of TVB dramas in 2023. The Chinese Wikipedia article is sourced to the TVB web page "1975-1979 (115)", which is now a dead link. Further expanding this list may require access to offline sources. Combining the smaller lists is a possible editorial option for now though once expanded to have all 24 1977 TVB dramas, there should be enough content to support a standalone 1977 list article. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "I agree with keeping this list for navigational purposes." shows this is Keep rationale is flat out nonsense. It clearly does not have a navigation purpose. // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "TVB series" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Summary of sources
TVB series have been covered in several academic sources and numerous media sources. The academic sources discuss the shows in the context of TVB's history. The media sources discuss the shows in the context of the highest rated, the lowest rated, the "most classic", and the "best".

Sources
1. Cheuk, Pak-Tong (Fall 1999). "The Beginning of the Hong Kong New Wave: The Interactive Relationship Between Television and the Film Industry". Post Script. Vol. 19, no. 1. pp. 10–27. ISSN 0277-9897. ProQuest 2141429.
  The article notes: "In the early years, HK-TVB's Jade channel (the Chinese language service) broadcast only three locally-produced programs. Much of the remaining airtime was filled by foreign series, such as Doctor Kildare, I Spy, The Lucy Show, and Bonanza (Hong Kong Television Weekly 17-18). The station also showed early Mandarin and Cantonese pictures, such as The Revenge, Truth and False Husband (Chao-zhou-dialect pictures), Cool Chau Mei, andWonderful Princess (Hong Kong Television Weekly 14). In this, HK-TVB's initial programming strategy was no different from that of Rediffusion Cable. In 1968, however, HK-TVB produced its first drama series, A Dream Is a Dream, shown in 15-minute segments once every week."
  The article notes: "Gradually, more locally produced series gained popularity. Here is the list of the HK-TVB's top ten programs in November 1970: (1) Enjoy Yourself Tonight; (2) It Takes a Thief; (3) Tarzan; (4) Kao's Club; (5) Japanese Story; (6) Sharp's Club; (7) Night of Sharp; (8) Viceroy's On Life; (9) News and Weather Report; (10) The Fugitive. Of this list, half were imports (numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10). On the other hand, the list also shows that locally produced series increasingly were favored by local audiences."
  The article notes: "In 1973, HK-TVB's new head of programming, Leong Suk-yi, produced the comedy series Seventy-Three, made up of 30-minute episodes shown once every week (30 episodes in all). Audiences welcomed the series for its refreshing satirical approach to social problems. It even garnered more viewers than Enjoy Yourself Tonight and became the territory's top rated program. The breakthrough achieved by Seventy-Three paved the way for series like Crossroad and CID (both 1976), Wonderfun (1977) and Seven Women; all were dramatic anthology series shot on film."
  The article notes: "In July 1978, the prime time program schedules of HK-TVB and CTV were as follows:"
  The article notes: "The dramatic mini-series that became most popular was HK-TVB's 1976 production Hotel. ... HK-TVB followed this success with the 1977 production A House is Not a Home."
2. Siu, Chiu Shun Patrick (2022-11-11). The rise and fall of popular variety programs – A Hong Kong Case Study (PDF) (PhD thesis). Hong Kong Baptist University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The thesis notes: "Background information of the selected five cases". The thesis discusses five TVB shows: "Program for Case Study 1 - Enjoy Yourself Tonight", "Program for Case Study 2 - Cantopop at 50", "Program for Case Study 3 - Movie Buff Championship", "Program for Case Study 4 - Am I Healthy?", and "Program for Case Study 5 - Be My Guest".
3. Chu, Yiu-Wai (2020-06-05). "Hong Kong (in China) studies: Hong Kong popular culture as example". Global Media and China. 5 (2). doi:10.1177/2059436420917564.
  The article notes: "For example, Kok-Leung Kuk, one of the executive directors of TVB martial arts classics including The Legend of the Condor Heroes《射鵰英雄傳》(1983), The Return of the Condor Heroes《神鵰俠侶》(1983) and The Duke of Mount Deer《鹿鼎記》(1984), co-directed a Mainland version"
  The article notes: "TVB started collaborating with Youku in 2013, airing its dramas on China’s leading online video and streaming service platforms. One such drama, Line Walker 《使徒行者》, recorded a total of 2.4 billion views in 2014. These drama serials provided higher production budgets to TVB, supposedly raising the production quality. Legal Mavericks 《踩過界》 (or 《盲俠大律師》 in the Mainland), the first co-produced title with iQiyi that premiered in June 2017, successfully accumulated total streaming views of over 500 million in Mainland China. Another co-production, Line Walker: The Prelude 《使徒行者2》, a crime-thriller drama serial, also reached remarkable total streaming views of over 2 billion on Tencent’s platform in Mainland China."
  The article notes: "Whether history will repeat itself or not is too early to tell, but, for example, in 2018, three of the five TVB serial dramas that recorded the lowest viewership ratings were co-productions: Another Era 《再創世紀》, Infernal Affairs 《無間道》, and The Great Adventurer Wesley 《冒險王衛斯理》 (“The Five TVB Dramas With Lowest Viewership Ratings,” 2019)."
4. Wong, Yan-wah 黃欣華 (2019-01-11). "TVB「2018最低收視五部劇集」出爐　高成本劇集收視未必似如期" [TVB's "Five Lowest-Rated Drama Series of 2018" is released. The ratings of high-cost dramas may not be as expected] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article lists the TVB series The Great Adventurer Wesley, Succession War, Infernal Affairs, Another Era, and Stealing Seconds.
5. Lo, Alex (2011-01-28). "A golden age when TVB dictated popular culture". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-04-28. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article notes: "Just as that period of time is considered the golden age of Hong Kong when its economy took off, it was arguably the best time for quality programmes at TVB. Dragon, Tiger and Leopard was an innovative crime drama series ... Another drama series, The Northern Stars, for a time, made being a social worker almost hip. Then came Gan Kwok-leung, arguably the best scriptwriter TVB ever had. He penned The Wrong Couples and No Biz Like Showbiz which restored the art of the dramatic dialogue that is hard to imagine for a TVB programme today."
6. Koh, Jiamun (2022-05-25). "The 10 TVB Shows With The Highest Ratings In The Past 12 Years". 8 Days. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article lists Forensic Heroes S4, Can't Buy Me Love, Triumph In The Skies 2, No Regrets, Forensic Heroes S3, Airport Strikers, Inbound Troubles, The Mysteries of Love, Story of Yanxi Palace, and Witness Insecurity.
7. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2023-09-01). "TVB今年13套劇集收視排行榜　第一位拋離成條街注定成大贏家？" [TVB's 13 TV drama ratings rankings this year: No. 1 is destined to be the big winner?] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 13 TVB series.
8. Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2023-01-02). "盤點2022年15套TVB深宵劇　三代歌影視男神全部都搵到！" [Taking stock of 15 TVB late-night dramas in 2022, all three generations of singing, film and television male stars are available!] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 15 TVB series.
9. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-01-21). "青春不要臉｜80年代最經典十部TVB劇集　絕對係香港輝煌的一頁" [Freedom Memories｜The ten most classic TVB dramas of the 1980s, definitely a glorious page in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
10. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-23). "TVB近年劇集最高收視十大排行榜　佘詩曼絕對係收視福星" [Top 10 TVB drama series with the highest ratings in recent years Charmaine Sheh is definitely a lucky star in the ratings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
11. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-20). "TVB歷史最低收視十套劇集排行榜　今年未完但已經有四套入圍" [Ranking of the top ten TVB dramas with the lowest ratings in TVB history. This year has not been completed but four dramas have already been shortlisted.] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
12. Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2022-03-26). "網民票選TVB十大冷門劇　蒼海遺珠勁多一線演員精彩過新劇" [Netizens voted TVB's top ten unpopular dramas. The Pearl of the Blue Sea has many A-list actors and actresses in the new drama.] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
13. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2021-05-21). "娛樂即時娛樂重溫20年前TVB劇集如何鼎盛　有六部劇集收視衝過40點！" [Entertainment Instant Entertainment revisits the heyday of TVB dramas 20 years ago. Six dramas have ratings exceeding 40 points!] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses several TVB series.
14. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-11-10). "網民嚴選今年TVB最好睇十套劇集《美麗戰場》愈鬧愈鍾意？" [Netizens carefully selected the ten best TVB dramas to watch this year. The more popular "The Beauty of War" is, the more you like it?] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
15. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2017-10-29). "【台慶50周年】回顧TVB紮根香港50年　細數十大最出色「神劇」" [[Station's 50th Anniversary] Looking back at TVB's 50 years of roots in Hong Kong and breaking down the top ten most outstanding "divine dramas"] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
16. Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2020-10-05). "TVB近十年最高收視10套劇集　最高一套基本上唔會再打破" [TVB's 10 highest-rated drama series in the past ten years, the highest-rated series will basically never break again] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 10 TVB series.
17. "【TVB古裝劇】網民嚴選30大TVB古裝劇　《金枝慾孽》+《大冬瓜》同上榜" [[TVB Costume Drama] Netizens carefully selected the top 30 TVB costume dramas. "War and Beauty" + "The Winter Melon Tale" are also on the list.]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-05-10. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses 30 TVB series.
18. "TVB經典影劇深夜接力重播　觀眾投票選最想睇經典劇集" [TVB late-night relay reruns of classic movies and dramas, viewers vote for the classic dramas they most want to watch]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2022-10-14. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses several TVB series.
19. "【萬千星2020】盤點TVB於2020年五大最高收視劇集　《法證IV》奪冠《使徒3》未入五大" [[TVB Anniversary Awards 2020] Taking stock of TVB's top five most-watched dramas in 2020. "Forensic Heroes IV" won the championship and "Line Walker: Bull Fight" did not enter the top five.]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2021-01-01. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses five TVB series.
20. Lo, Chi-wang 羅志宏 (2023-12-29). "細數2023年TVB劇集最高平均收視排行榜！僅得呢三部重頭劇 ..." [Break down the ranking of the highest average ratings of TVB dramas in 2023! Only three major dramas scored more than 20 points]. U Lifestyle [zh] (in Chinese). Hong Kong Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article discusses eight TVB series.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE

WP:NOTTVGUIDE says:
Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."
These articles do not contain "upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks". They contain "historically significant program lists and schedules" as shown through the coverage in academic and media sources.

"Simple listings"

WP:NOTDIRECTORY says:
Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.
WP:LISTCRITERIA says: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources."
The membership criteria of these lists is "unambiguous" and "objective" as membership is based on which TVB dramas were broadcast. The membership criteria is "supported by reliable sources" because TVB series have been discussed in academic and media sources.
WP:LISTCRITERIA further says, "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence."
A topic that has been covered by academic and media sources meets the "encyclopedic and topical relevance" requirement.

The list fulfills informational and navigation purposes.

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability, which says: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
1. It meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information, which says, The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
  This structured list is a chronological ordering of all the TVB dramas that have been released in 1977. It is an annotated list that has the drama's airing dates, title, number of episodes, main cast, theme song(s), genre, and notes.
2. It meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Navigation, which says, Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. This is an index of all the TVB dramas that have been released in 1977.
  TVB produces Cantonese-language dramas. Most English Wikipedia editors do not speak Cantonese. This is why Category:TVB dramas has only 578 articles on television series, while the Chinese Wikipedia's version of the category, zh:Category:無綫電視劇集, has 3,049 articles. Wikipedia:Systemic bias discusses this, noting that As a result of systemic bias, Wikipedia underrepresents the perspectives of people in the Global South, which includes Hong Kong. Although these articles do not exist on the English Wikipedia, they exist on the Chinese Wikipedia. Taking the 2023 list as an example (zh:翡翠台電視劇集列表 (2023年)), there are detailed, well-sourced articles on 2023 TVB dramas such as zh:新四十二章 and zh:新聞女王. There are not corresponding English Wikipedia articles because there are not enough English Wikipedia editors with the interest and Chinese-language skills to create them.
Multi-page list articles

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations, which discusses the conventions for "splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles". The long list here is "List of TVB series", while the sub-articles are "List of TVB dramas in 2022", "List of TVB dramas in 2023", etc.
The guideline gives the example, "For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation, is a likely reason for this variance)."
The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long. There is no need for the split child lists to individually meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists since the long parent list meets the notability guideline.

General notability guideline

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of TVB series (1977) was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by TVB (2nd nomination) in January 2024.
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by TVB (2nd nomination) participants who have not already participated in this AfD: Toughpigs (talk · contribs) and Cool90630 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is about 1977, none of the above shows this meets NLIST. Spamming general refs will not meet NLIST, it just shows ILIKEIT. // Timothy :: talk

KeepI vote no on this page of nomination with article of deletion and here is the link about TVB Series 1977 of mytvsuper: https://www.mytvsuper.com/en/programme/greatvendettathe0002_128332/THE-GREAT-VENDETTA/ https://www.mytvsuper.com/en/programme/ahouseisnotahome_103303/A-House-Is-Not-A-Home/. Basically, don't know why the certain person of Timothy are trying to report nomination as no reason https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TVB_series_(1977)&diff=prev&oldid=1222806959 who claims that "Fails NLIST! Found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources." If I were TimothyBlue, I wouldn't satisfied and including not participated with nomination in this AFD for report to touch. Without report nomination for this AfD and that shouldn't happen in first place. I totally agree with Cunard to keep on active at all time that's because it was very important about TVB history. Cool90630 (talk).
Note to closer: The above is nonsense. This is a list with one non-notable entry and no sources for NLIST. The above refs are just spam, none of them discuss the subject - 1977 - as a group, and how that the BEFORE for this list was correct. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the list entry of The Great Vendetta [zh] and added sources. The list now has two entries. I wrote above that the list can be expanded to 24 entries since there were 24 TVB dramas in 1977. I wrote above that a child list split by year from a long parent list does not need to itself meet the notability guideline when the parent list meets the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I totally agree with more source about TVB Series 1977 article of the above is make more sense. "The above is nonsense shows this is keep rationale is flat out nonsense. It clearly does not have a navigation purpose" so it seems off-topic here that's how TB user didn't seem understand what the TVB Drama 1977 is about so then trying to report nomination with article of deletion. If TB did not satisfied without approved as fails NLIST policy found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by specific independent reliable sources then TB should have put the article of creation or ask Cunard talk page instead so that's way to understand for adding more reference sources on the TVB Series articles. I am not trying to inconsiderate here by the way. Cool90630 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think that the TVB series 1977 should kept as history and search TVBanywhere, Drama name episode by TVB or mytvsuper online details. (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while of course, policy-based arguments are important, I'd like to see an assessment of new sources brought to this discussion. Additionally, I'll add that I don't see much support here or in the previous AFD for deletion. But keep any further comments focused on sources and policy and not on contributors or general statements about the subject matter. This is an AFD, not an article or user talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Entourage characters[edit]

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

Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. The individual character articles like Ari Gold (Entourage) or Vincent Chase might reach the threshold of significant coverage required by WP:NOTABILITY. But this miscellaneous list does not. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entourage is notable, and WP:CSC #2 applies to a list of individually NN characters from a notable show or franchise. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested G4, just nearly unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) and re-created because this is a very important page to a large community of 30k people rather than because they believe the close was wrong. Jmajeremy raises a potential solution, but it does not appear this has happened and it remains just a directory. Star Mississippi 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article now moved to List of IMAX venues with 15/70 or laser projectors. I would suggest a pause in moving this any further until the AfD closes (in either direction) Star Mississippi 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think listing this article for deletion so soon is WP:ZEALOUS. Give the author(s) a chance to continue writing and editing. Looking at the previous AfD, the rationale several people gave was that a simple list of all IMAX venues would be long and not very useful. For example, one user wrote "Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it", which is true, but this article doesn't seek to simply list all accredited IMAX theatres--that list is already available on IMAX's website--this article has the goal of only summarizing venues which have a particular type of projection equipment. It is very similar to articles like List of films released in IMAX and List of drive-in theaters, so if those articles aren't simple directories, I don't see why this article would be considered one. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason for keeping something, but taking List of drive-in theaters, it's a list of notable (i.e. having there own page) drive in movie theatres. This means it is a navigation list and passes WP:LISTPURP. It's also extensively sourced to independent secondary sources that themselves list "drive in theatres" thus it complies with WP:NLIST. This article does neither of these things. If you want to restrict this to only notable IMAX venues (like the drive-in article) you'd be left with 13 items (by my count of Category:IMAX venues) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The venues included in this list are in fact notable. Many of them do have dedicated articles even if they haven't yet been linked properly, and many of the other theatres on this list are notable enough to have their own articles, if someone was inclined to write them. Out of the 1700 IMAX theatres that exist, we're talking about only a few dozen around the world which would meet the criteria to be included on this list. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. Rbvamm (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Which is currently covered in the IMAX article quite adequately. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. I'm not really sure what your trying to say here, but we do in fact have articles on a variety of aspect ratios. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. Then there's no way this could be notable even beside its directory characteristics. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the full list User:Jmajeremy it is a very useful resource there is NO reason to delete this Aselwyn1 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article and the previous article are a compilation of information that amounts to more than a simple “phone book” repetition of theater venues. There is technical information concerning the screen aspect ratio's, screen sizes, and specific projection types that must be sourced individually. IMAX's official list has only basic data concerning venues that this list sought to add to, not merely repeat. This article needs significantly better sourcing and formatting improvements, but in my interpretation, I believe it's a useful concept and not a mere repetitive directory. FriendlyToaster (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The users who voted on the previous article being deleted clearly don’t know/understand IMAX formats. I don’t see how it was WP:NOTDIR. It was not a directory. It was a listing of IMAX venues with their technical information. Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website). I can perhaps understand the deletion because there are too many regular IMAX xenon theatres to list and that makes it more of a directory. But a more specialised list of Laser and 70mm venues is not very long and should be kept. Mrblue6 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here, so might be expecting some editors that are being canvassed here. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend anybody coming here to sign on up and vote it down to Keep as somebody in the fist link says reads WP:CANVASING, WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:MEATPUPPET Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet) and it was WP:NOTDIR. Folks who want to keep it are trying to save this valuable information. Give them a chance to update this article and make it relevant. There is an effort to potentially create this information on GITHUB. Maybe that can be a better home for the information but even if that happens, for the general public (not just a niche community) looking for information on 15/70 IMAX screens, it just won’t be as convenient as this. Reportersteven (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have been around for a very long time, but in that time the purpose of Wikipedia ha changed dramatically. That's not remotely what the project is for, which renders this not a valid keep !vote. Star Mississippi 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA I am disappointed to see a long-time WP editor using ad hominem to dismiss someone's viewpoint 143.58.201.143 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is what Star Mississippi an ad hominem? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing someone's vote as invalid on the basis of the editors lack of familiarity with how the purpose of Wikipedia has allegedly evolved since they were last active, is no better than dismissing an argument because an editor is new to Wikipedia. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a recreation of a deleted article. If you have a problem with a close the place to go is WP:DR. A listing of IMAX venues with their technical information falls under the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it more clearly falls under the letter of WP:NOTDATABASE. And this not available anywhere else is all the more reason to delete, as the job of Wikipedia is to follow the sources, not engage in original research or provide Free web hosting for your "WP:USEFUL" list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a list of IMAX venues with their technical information, it's a specific list of notable IMAX locations due to their rare projection technology. The information is all available elsewhere, but nowhere else in a single cohesive list. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are two main purposes for lists: to provide internal navigation for Wikipedia and to have lists for groupings that have been adequately discussed in reliable sources (e.g., List of drive-in theatres fits the first one, as it serves to link to Wikipedia pages; List of films released in IMAX fits the second, having been a common topic both the news and in certain filmmaking scholarly circles). This fits neither and as such, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTPURPOSE. Also, fun fact. If you want to keep a list because the information is not anywhere else, then you basically just admitted that the list is not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to a few of these points: WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists 6 items articles are not. This list is clearly not 2-5, and doesn't fit the definition of 1. It is not trying to be a simple list of every theater out there, rather a specific subset of the theaters with the unique specifications of each venue cataloged. This provides context to the main IMAX article and valuable information to people interested in these theaters. The specs for 70mm and Laser showings was a topic that was widely discussed amongst theater goers and the media with recent releases such as Oppenheimer and Dune. A list is an ideal format for cataloging and documenting a small number of unique theaters like this. Many of which do actually have dedicated articles or deserve an article, which fits the points in WP:LISTPURPOSE to provide valuable information and be an aggregate to more articles. This article and its predecessor certainly do/did not provide adequate wiki linking or sourcing. This point is very accurate, but is not what it's being deleted for. On the last point, the assertion that the information is not available elsewhere and therefore is not notable is not accurate. This article compiles publicly available data from disparate sources, particularly technical specifications not listed within IMAX's own theater catalog. Specs that most theaters do discuss in press releases and local news. This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable and demonstrates value, while also not being WP:NOR as it's all basic information that's already been published. It's more than a simple repeat directory and does have notability. These articles represent efforts by the community to document and catalog their niche for others to learn about and share, and I still fail to see how it has broken rules in a way to merit deletion before improvement. FriendlyToaster (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the five key principles of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia^[1], part of Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia states that "[they provide] summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline."^[2] My interpretation of this article is a summary of knowledge about IMAX theatres that has been gathered from many different sources meaning that it should be part of an encyclopedia, although admittedly the article needs citing and formatting improvements it should still be part of Wikipedia. additionally this article is similar to other articles such as list of james bond films^[3] and if this article isn't considered against Wikipedia guidelines then I don't see why "list of imax venues with 15/70 and laser projectors" is either.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term WP:Encyclopedia, like many terms used on Wikipedia, is a term of art, with a meaning that isn't necessarily exactly the definition you would find in a dictionary. The actual pillar (found at WP:5P1) says in part Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [...]. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform, [...] an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. This is why people keep linking to WP:NOT, which is the policy which explains all the types of knowledge we don't include. We explicitly recommend that people take such knowledge to other outlets (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that policy, and I genuinely don't think it applies to this article. I would love to know which of the 6 categories described at WP:NOTDIR people think that this article falls under, because I have re-read it several times and none of them strike me as even remotely describing this article. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, but this was created almost immediately when the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) was due to close. The editor who created this new article had a history of just three edits at the time. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the preceding AfD outcome which had closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes this a clear fail? I would say it clearly is an appropriate topic for a list based on WP:SALAT. Yes the original author is fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think they're trying to circumvent anything, this is a new list with a more narrowly defined WP:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:USEFUL is not a suitable keep argument here. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NLIST. There is no sourcing discussing these as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this [14]. Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Travelling Nomad. Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold this is genuinely encyclopaedic content that gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere. These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media whenever a new premium format movie is released, and acclaimed directors such as Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve have told the best way to experience their work is to find one of these premium venues and watch it there. I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement. There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that WP:BOLD applies here. As you look above different views have already been established.

These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media

It is helpful if you provide sources when you make statements such as this.

I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement.

The article is being considering inline with notability not film enthusiasm.

There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal.

Strange things can happen but it is not a reason to engage in whataboutism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per JmaJeremy and Travelling nomad 1. This article, as other editors have also mentioned, was created based on a suggestion given for the deletion of "List of IMAX venues," which was to make an article that focuses on a specific subsection of IMAX theatres, as opposed to listing every single one. And this article has done that, being created for specifically 15/70 or laser projection IMAX theatres. An argument for this article's deletion is that there are not enough credible sources. This can be fixed by giving the editors of this article more time to add information and citations. This article is not a directory, as it isn't just a list of venues, rather a collection of tables which provide additional information, such as types of film projectors, screen dimensions, sound system type, aspect ratio, etc. Mjks28 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we are just supposed to trust, that this article which was recreated to get around the consensus at the last WP:AFD (as the creator has said at reddit), meats WP:NLIST because there WP:MUSTBESOURCES and we just need to give editors (who don't seem to see a problem with having "information not found anywhere else on the net") a little more time. Now is the time for people wanting to keep the article to find multiple in depth sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NLIST. Also I don't see how your solution to being a directory is to add more unverifiable/synthy information. Presumably we would could therefore have List of Plumbers in New York as long as we added a bunch of other WP:INDISCRIMINATE information in a table format. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us were not aware of the previous deletion request, but now see how valuable this list is once it was missing. Consider List of airports in Australia, that is far more of a directory than this page is. In fact, this page is based on collecting secondary sources which is the very purpose of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the airports are independently notable, thus it serves as a navigation system for Wikipedia. This is no such type of list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much disagree. Many of these venues are notable, even the flagship IMAXes in their countries or cities, with their own articles and histories and details. For those, it does serve as a navigation system, and prevents orphaned articles. Criticalus (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles are about the museums or independently notable theatres that happen to have IMAX. The fact that these places include the format is a non-defining trait for all of these. Most of these pages do not even mention the fact that they have IMAX screens. Very much a bad argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is the key policy here. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are currently finding and citing sources for the venues, I'm just saying that adding sources cannot be done instantly, and that editors will require more time to properly add multiple sources for each venue. Mjks28 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very useful list for finding "real" Imaxes, which the official page does not distinguish, and as such based on a compiliation of secondary sources, exactly the purview of wikipedia. It is thus not a directory, but a researched and very handy list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no harm in leaving up a page so many of us find useful. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. We need to see WP:N, and so far that has not been provided as it pertains to the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is a secondary source [15] that talks about how the specific aspect ratio of some imaxes are the "real thing" and some are not. This information is collected in the same way as any other article of wikipedia. It follows from this one link I provided that there is value in creating a list (not found elsewhere) of these specific types of imaxes. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I applaud the desire to keep Wikipedia within scope, and trim the number of lists generally. However, this particular list is extremely useful to the Wiki in a few ways. It uses secondary sourcing to confirm and augment data that is then used in infoboxes across the mainspace. It also provides vital links connecting various IMAX articles that would otherwise be orphaned. Notability has already been established - IMAX is the most popular large-format theatrical experience globally, it receives significant coverage across many reliable sources, including quality third-party sources like LF Examiner which were dedicated to its coverage, and this list is the connective tissue that makes the many articles surrounding IMAX navigable. Criticalus (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is these aren't secondary sources. About us, and theatre listings are primary and just confirm they exist, which isn't helpful for notability. Star Mississippi 13:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the lead paragraph to provide sourced inclusion criteria from a secondary source as someone above mentioned was needed to ensure the list was not a directory. I hope this is what was meant by the comment. This can of course be improved with further sourcing and better wording but I think this should meet the requirement. Mattximus (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single source given above would be a good source for the IMAX article (or one on True IMAX), but this is not those articles, and still fails WP:NOTDIR as it still a list of (mostly) non-notable locations, based if they happen to have bought a particular companies projector system. If you want to make an article on 'true IMAX' starting with those sources instead of trying to graft it on to an list that fails WP:NOT more than it does WP:N (although I also think it fails WP:LISTN as well). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting proposition, would you consider a new page called True Imax, which contains this list within it, no longer a directory? I strongly disagree that it is just a directory as the rarity of these projectors is notable itself. But this may be an interesting compromise. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could we even rename this page and add the extra information while retaining the list? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would still be a directory (of mostly non-notable locations that happen to have a particular service) whether the title had the word list in it. Just to make it clear when we use the term WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia we are (almost always) referring to WP:GNG, not what individual editor think is WP:IMPORTANT or rare. My suggestion was to take these sources which discuss the topic as a whole, and the information already in IMAX, and create a prose article on it based on those sources (in a way that complies with WP:N and WP:PROPORTION). It may then be appropriate to include a list of notable venues as example (that is to say, have articles, or are very likely have articles) but I highly doubt most of these would make the cut. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE apply to this article, as well as the group not meeting WP:LISTN. The article is just a list of mostly non-notable theaters and they are not discussed together as a group. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not great arguments, and canvassing on Reddit doesn't look great either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST and there are plenty of other places available to hold random lists. Plenty of places have an IMAX theater, it's not some grand revelation whether they do or not. Also seems like a way to just try and get around the previous deletion of List of IMAX theaters (it's even a redirect to the page). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these theatres are notable in themselves for having this rare projection equipment out of the hundreds of thousands of theatres and thousands of IMAX theatres only a small number have this rare and advanced equipment, equipment that has been lengthily discussed in the media and among cinema-goers in recent months with the release of Oppenheimer and Dune part 2. Does that not make these cinemas notable? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth trying to create articles on more of the entries in this list. Garuda3 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do really think most of these venues would meet WP:N. A reminder that notability is NOTINHERITED on the basis that something provides a rare services but on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft meets Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory, this list needs to pass NLIST, nothing found in the article or in BEFORE that show this has been discussed as a group. Nothing in the article indicates it serves a navigation purpose. No sources found in the above Keep fanspam and the canvassing is obvious. // Timothy :: talk 17:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE too. In short, Wikipedia is not Tripadvisor. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Algeria[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Algeria. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. NLeeuw (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update List of battles in Albania has been deleted for the same reason. NLeeuw (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. Toadette^Edit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.

If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.

That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update As Liz noted, List of battles in Albania has been deleted for the same reason. Simultaneously, we are phasing out "battles in Fooland" categories (e.g. Category:Battles in Uganda was Purged and Renamed to Category:Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War; Category:Battles in Latvia was Manually Merged, etc.). NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands

"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."

So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a perfect scenario, these all should probably have been put on Wikisource. Looks like someone started such an idea at Wikisource, The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, but it never got beyond that. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college sports team nicknames in North America[edit]

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, Canada, United States of America, and North America. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there's a corresponding article, but college teams' nicknames is certainly a notable topic discussed by a variety of sources. Sources include [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In North America though? Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, delete the ones in Canada and Mexico if you want a US-focused list. I don't see the point of that though. Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have U Sports#Conferences and members and List of Mexican collegiate American football programs for Canada and Mexico respectively. I do not expect the remaining North American countries to have significantly notability, WP:LISTN, for navigational purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So shorten this list to be the US ones. I think this is a valid navigational list for that at least. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of college team nicknames in the United States exists already. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had searched but didn't see that. I would support a merge, but I do like how this is sorted by type and with the length this is a rare instance that keeping separate (or even merging the alphabetical list to this one) would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, U Sports#Conferences & members, List of Mexican collegiate American football programs and List of college team nicknames in the United States are sufficient. I couldn't find anything that discussed everything has a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [33], [34] and [35]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [36], [37] and [38].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these from 2023's: [39] and [40]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[41] [42] [43] and [44] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [45], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [46], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[47] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[48] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [49] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [50] and [51] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [52] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical theories[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This list seems aimed to list all articles having "theory" in their title. It present at the same level some wide areas of mathematics (set theory) and some very specialized method (Iwasawa theory). So, it does not contain any relevant encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is saying that WP:LSC is not satisfied in a meaningful way. Having "theory" included in the title was probably good enough in 2004, when the list page was first created. The list is hardly complete: sieve theory isn't there, for example. While mathematicians recognise as "theory" any coherent area with enough definitions, results and characteristic ideas, this kind of theory is nothing like a scientific theory. So the list may be of little or no help to non-mathematicians. I would suggest first a division by subject headings, such as "theories in topology". I mean, this is potentially a useful list, just as a list of problems or a list of theorems would be, but there should be more explanation and apparatus. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For having this article, we must have a sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory; the unsourced three lines of Mathematical theory are far to be sufficients. Moreover, in mathematics, some other words are used with a similar meaning, such as "geometry", "algebra", "calculus", and "analysis". For example, projective geometry means "projective-space theory"; commutative algebra stands for "commutative-ring theory", to be compared with ring theory, which deals with non-necessarily commutative rings; integral calculus stand for "theory of integrals"; real analysis stands for "theory of real functions". So, without a reliably sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory, this article is pure original synthesis. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a reasonable argument, but I would like to see it on Talk:List of mathematical theories because there is plenty to say. To use your examples, axiomatic set theory is a number of choices of axiomatic theory, while Iwasawa theory was originally "Iwasawa's analogue of the Jacobian", which John Coates renamed, and over the course of half a century became a major subfield of algebraic number theory, which is not an axiomatic theory so much as the study of algebraic number fields. To be really helpful, this sort of information, including the genesis of a theory, should be tabulated. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to list of mathematical theories and subfields. Such a list could have sections for eponymous theories such as Morse theory and Iwasawa theory, and for other special cases. The distinction between commutative algebra and the subfield of ring theory dealing with commutative rings is that commutative algebra is also concerned with modules over such rings. That is seen in the way the earlier name ideal theory was revised, modules over a ring being a generalisation of ideals in a ring, an innovation in the school of Emmy Noether. The list has been harmless enough for 20 years. No need to delete, when we can adjust the scope a bit. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I looked at that list, but it seems more like a category than an article. For example, wikipedia has a Category:Duality theories. --SilverMatsu (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. But it would be ok as a category. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Charles Matthews. Informative article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theaters[edit]

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas: LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas. // Timothy :: talk 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [53], [54], [55], [56]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [57], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.

PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing in article shows this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Keep votes above found nothing that meets NLIST and are ILIKEIT votes, and the article does not serve any navigation purpose. If anyone finds independent sources meeting NLIST, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of La Liga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a tv guide.. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability.[58], [59], [60]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources.Puente aereo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and necessary article, its sources are the best PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST. Refs in article do not discuss the subject - the broadcasters - as a group by independent sources, they are routine sports news; the list serves no CLN purpose. // Timothy :: talk 18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. It is also one of the most important soccer leagues in the world, not the San Marino league. It has the same or more merit of existing than articles like List of NBA broadcasters, MLB broadcasters or NFL broadcasters. It has potential to continue improving, perhaps some things can be corrected but it should not be eliminated.--Edu1388 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings[edit]

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. ~~Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR~~. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.

@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article. // Timothy :: talk 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There seems to be some agreement that there's unnecessary duplication between the various articles listing equipment, but no consensus as to which should be the primary article for this list, with at least three different pages proposed here. Discussion on a selective merger should continue on the respective article Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish military aircraft[edit]

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

This list is unnecessary duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. I don't see any good reason to such duplication, given that duplication is generally discouraged in Wikipedia as duplicate articles is difficult to maintain, and also outlined in WP:DUPLICATE.

Aside of duplication issue. It seems the duplicate article is created to trying to work around the consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table which was recently informed to creator of this duplicate article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (2): the article is now also duplicate with to Polish Navy#Aircraft, so the lead sentence is revised to reflect this duplicate. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (3): also tried WP:A10, but was blocked. lead sentence is rewrited to remove duplicate arguments. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:

Military, Transportation, Lists, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this should be deleted, then be consistent and recommend the deletion of:

Because individual lists exist for each branch, and then another summary exists. The problem of the list in the other pages is that it lacks details, and people don't want additional details there. At least here, there is more clarity.

If the images are a problem, then it should be a problem with

Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, if it was really a duplicate then it may be on my next to do list. Afeterall, I do have history to remove duplicate table Air Force inventory table in the past, such as Yemeni Air Force, Gabon Air Force, Indonesian Air Force, and more. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is longer and has pictures. So against redirecting it there. Also there are over a hundred articles like this. Category:Lists_of_military_aircraft. Dream Focus 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focusre: This article is duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Wikipedia in general is against duplication articles. Regarding images on table, we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link to a discussion had in 2015, with 4 wanting to get rid of images like this, and 1 wanting to keep it. So 5 people decided something in a two week discussion most never noticed, 9 years ago. I think a new discussion is warranted with greater participation, and not just about aircraft, but list of tanks, ships, and whatnot. Dream Focus 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that consensus can change per WP:CCC. However, until new consensus reached, it doesn't means we can disregard existing consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The presence or absence of photos is irrelevant re AfD. @Ckfasdf: put the "disruptive editing" cudgel away. // Timothy :: talk 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic is different the other ones and therefore, this isn't a WP:CFORK. It would correspond to other articles that Fabrice Ram cited, like List of active Russian military aircraft. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakaria1978: If we look up Russian Aerospace Forces, Russian Naval Aviation and Russian Ground Forces, we'll notice that none of them include aircraft inventory tables. Instead, all Russian military aircraft are listed in the article titled List of active Russian military aircraft, hence no duplication issue or not WP:REDUNDANTFORK. However, this differs from the approach taken in Polish military articles, where each branch has its own aircraft inventory table: Polish Air Force#Aircraft, Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. These tables are duplicate information found in the List of Polish military aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content is well sourced, I can't see merging with parents due to size, community consensus accepts these military equipment lists generally meet notability requirements. I do think the duplicate lists in the individual branch articles should be removed and replaced with a hat pointing to the appropriate spot in this list, eg: rm Polish Air Force#Aircraft and replace with hatnote to List of Polish military aircraft#Polish air force. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: The existing parent articles (such as Polish Air Force, Polish Land Forces, and Polish Navy) already contain lists of military equipment. According to WP:SIZE, a WP:SPINOFF is warranted only if there are concerns about article size. However, the parent articles size are not excessively large, ranging from only 250-350kB. Therefore, there appears to be no necessity for a WP:SPLITLIST at this time. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is not black and white, there are plenty of gray areas where an issue is either up to editorial discretion or community consensus. In this case their is a community consensus that these lists (Lists of military equipment) are generally notable, useful for readers, and having the information in one place is easier to keep updated. I see no reason to have this information split into multiple articles. The editors in this thread seem to agree. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that not everything is black and white, plenty of gray, and there are even times when rules can be ignored per WP:IAR, there must be a compelling reason to justify such exceptions, like bypassing WP:SIZE guidelines. While the List by itself is generally notable, the issue at hand involves potential duplication. If we look up other Air Forces pages, it's evident that out of 147 Air Force articles, 128 integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, while only 17 opt for separate presentation, including as a List. This indicates that the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table to readers is within the air force article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transclusion can be a solution if keeping material current is a concern. See List of active United States Air Force aircraft. Schierbecker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a very well phrased rationale; issues have been identified, alternatives have been considered, and deletion has been requested in accordance with our policies and guidelines. The only reason to keep would be to merge it properly by removing the texts from the 3 source pages and removing the images as demanded by Convention. NLeeuw (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. The nominator might have more success with a compelling Merger proposal rather than a strong demand to delete an article that other editors find appropriate. But without providing a new perspective, this discussion is verging on bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to this list
- (preferred) either just List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft (Polish Land Forces#Aircraft doesn't exist) and Polish Navy#Aircraft, since they're subsidiary elements of those branches, and have a hatnote pointing to Polish Air Force#Aircraft, or
- all three to here. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: As I mentioned on the lead, if the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, or Polish Navy#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. But, they are three different list belong to different branch of armed forces. And 128 of 147 Air Force articles integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, which indicates the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions[edit]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

[1]

[2]

[3]