Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

Points of interest related to Lists on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – Style – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

List of characters in Monarch of the Glen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable list of characters that is completely unreferenced. WP:SIGCOV could not be found. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mysticons characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable list without WP:SIGCOV. The only sources are database style notes about the cast. WP:ATD would be to redirect this to a section in Mysticons. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of political movements named after dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, does not meet WP:SALAT as it is too trivial Bluepotato81 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of active coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no longer any active coal-fired power stations in the UK - good news for the environment, but that means this list is no longer required. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A rare case where the deletion of an article is understood, proper, and relieving; no ATD to be found, so it should be quietly wound down. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of decommissioned coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom. Right before this nomination, a list of recently closed plants was removed from this page [1]. Since those are blue links, I think this is would be a relevant subarticle of Lists of power stations in the United Kingdom that should be kept for historical coverage, similar to List of decommissioned coal-fired power stations in the United States. Reywas92^Talk 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional detectives for younger readers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, there's no reason to split List of fictional detectives into a list specifically for "younger readers". Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No valid reason for a spin-out and no indication that this fictional concept is notable. A redirect would not be viable as any of the other target lists include many subjects outside of the "younger readers" section and lack a dedicated subsection for them, which would be detrimental to reader navigation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Finland. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Finnish names for random places around the world are not encyclopedic; however, Finnish names for parts of Russia that used to be a part of Finland are encyclopedic, and the same might pertain to Sweden and Norway - Finns/Kven are a recognized minority in Norway and some places in Norway e.g. Porsanger have official Finnish names. Indeed, there is a Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Perhaps there also should be a Finnish exonyms for places in Russia, and maybe Sweden, and this main Finnish exonyms page be an index for those two/three. Remove the rest. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of travel podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE unrelated entries majority of them being non notable. I would argue neither do any of the other "List of X podcasts" but I disagree with mass nominations. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Despite their inclusion in reliable sources, I don't think all of the listed podcasts can be objectively considered "travel podcasts" rather than podcasts about history and culture. For example, The Bitter Southerner is not about travel. It turns out that this particular podcast does involve travel. Also, it might be fine to have "travel podcasts" that are not "podcasts about traveling". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @OlifanofmrTennant: every entry in the list has a source that calls it a "travel podcast". Can you explain what you mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE or indicate which of the four examples it falls under (NOTPLOT, NOTLYRICS, NOTSTATS, or NOTCHANGELOG)? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It best fits NSTATS but not really. It's more the fact that Travel podcast isn't an article therefore list of not notable thing isn't notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your deletion rationale that the list is not notable then? This list could pass WP:NLIST independently of whether Travel podcast passes WP:N. It's also worth noting that WP:LISTCRIT states that While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists. So not all entries in the list have to be notable and notability does not have to be the criteria for inclusion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The library in Spotify/Overcast/Apple is pretty massive. If they're not notable they shouldn't be listed. But even some of the bluelinks are radio shows or authors, so I don't think this is really feasible. All of these lists of podcasts are problematic, simply listing a fraction of those available to listen to with no clear inclusion criteria. Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NLIST because travel podcasts have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is demonstrated by the existing references. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chromebooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are hundreds of Chromebooks, including many that are not on this list. Of these, only a handful have been deemed notable for their own article. Not only is this list unwieldy and the scope too broad to be feasibly maintained, but the material also reeks of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:LISTCRUFT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning delete, I agree entirely with the nom statement that the scope of "list of chromebooks" is so broad and ever increasing, that it's simply not feasible to maintain the article as an up to date list which is all-encompassing. Even as a means of supporting a purchase for interested readers, the older devices become insignificant with the passage of time, except if becoming historically notable. Unless others counter with a sound retention rationale, i'm edging towards delete, as to rewrite into something different would probably be a WP:TNT job anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as the person who created the article, only to get the excessively long list of info off the main Chromebook page, I'm happy for it to be deleted as unwieldy/unable to be maintained/trivial/excessively detailed for inclusion on WP. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article fails WP:NLIST. Almost all items are non-notable. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Weak Keep. I don't see how the article is promotional and its a well sourced list. It serve as a informational list per WP:LISTPURP. The problem is it needed more expansion. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NLIST because Indian podcasts have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is demonstrated by the cited sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Armenia. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just because the French article was deleted, that does not automatically validate the others being deleted as well. There are around ~45 other "exonym" articles which still exist. They should all be nomed for deletion if we are going to use WP:NOTDICT as our justification. It is not fair to omit any of them based on this policy. If the policy isn't applied more fairly, I'd lean to a Keep and improve for this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or transwiki no evidence that WP:NLIST is met. Archives908, are you aware of significant RS coverage about Armenian exonyms as a group? (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of works for cello and piano by women composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is "works for cello and piano by women composers" somehow a notable intersection of characteristics? Seems like a random grouping of two separately notable characteristics. Fram (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see what is random about allowing Wikipedia users to find compositions by women composers for cello and piano. Every performer is nowadays asked to include works by women in their concert programs and information about them is still very hard to find. What better place than Wikipedia to offer this information. The list can be updated by anyone and there is no danger that it reflects only one person's taste. Celloville (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. There are countless combinations of characteristics which could be useful for some readers (such works by country, by period, by length, by mood, by difficulty, ...), but if the combination is not the subject of commentary in reliable sources, it is not a good subject for a Wikipedia list. Fram (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom for failing WP:NLIST and maybe WP:SALAT too ("one-eyed horse thieves from Montana"). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT. This may be a random grouping of three characteristics: cello and piano and women. This particular intersection of characteristics is not encyclopedic nor has it received precise professional commentary, regardless of whether it is useful for those trying to strategically program a concert. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dubious concept. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I understand correctly from these comments is that all pages, such as List of compositions for cello and piano, List of works for cello and orchestra are considered "random" and should therefore be deleted? If characteristics such as : cello and piano and women are considered "random" should we not then also delete the page: List of women composers by birth date, it has three "random characteristics: women, composer and birth date. What about: List of women film score composers and Trobairitz women troubadours?

  I have the feeling that you object to the word woman in the title of my page. Celloville (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I and the others above blue-linked established Wikipedia policies that explain the situation. Meanwhile, this debate has no relevance for any other article in Wikipedia that could be improved or deleted via separate discussions. And since you yourself found many Wikipedia articles with "women" in their titles, that negates your allegation about that word. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional primates in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A vast majority of list is WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:LISTCRIT. I would also support a merge back into List of fictional primates if the outcome isn't deletion. SirMemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST (and yes, before I hear it should, it does ALSO meet the criterion for lists, see https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/15-famous-movie-monkeys/ or https://www.cbr.com/movie-tv-greatest-apes-ranked/ or https://collider.com/best-movie-monkeys-ranked/ etc,) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the issue though. This list could easily be merged back into the main article with no length or accessibility issues arising, which is what I assume SPLITLIST concerns. SirMemeGod  21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could, maybe, everything is feasible. But should it? SPLITLIST says "Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." Note that there are FIVE detailed lists on the page: this one and List of fictional primates in comics, List of fictional primates in television, List of fictional primates in animation List of fictional primates in literature. If you merge back one, you merge back all the other and then you have an awful navigation experience. I would go even further, and suggest to undo the redirect for List_of_fictional_primates_in_video_games but that might be discussed later maybe. I probably won't make any further comments here. Decide what you think best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional primates per WP:ATD, but this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world association football records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a jumbled mess of a list article, there is no clear criteria for what is included, and most of what is included is simply trivial information (most headed goals, most wins for a footballer, various random unproven goalscoring records). Any world records of actual merit already have their own articles (goals, appearances). All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T WANT THIS PAGE TO BE DELETED. IT IS A SACRILEGE.Juanan412 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Category:Association football records and statistics is sufficient. GiantSnowman 18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Important list and compiles football records in general, there is no good reason to delete it. --Mishary94 (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim anything unsourced or any tenuous "records" (e.g. most goals scored with one foot) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely all but about five of the records in the article can be described as tenuous? I mean, any non-trivial goals and appearance records already have their own articles, and any other record of note would have its own article owing to notability, but they don't. "Youngest footballer to play in first division", "Footballer to play more years uninterruptedly", "Player to win most international club titles", "Most unbeaten matches", "Manager who won most finals", "Club with the most top tier-level titles", "Competition with most clubs participated in total", etc etc etc etc etc. This is all trivia, and this is the vast majority of the article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We can modify some things but keeping the most important ones. --Juanan412 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you still of the belief that "most left foot goals" is an important one? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The indication is not based on policy since a list of records will contain some specific information inherent to those who are familiar with the sport. I also disagree that just the existence of a category would resolve the situation. The existing problems regarding the scope of records can and should be resolved together in WP:FOOTBALL (I am personally critical of adopting the IFFHS as the main reference), but a WP:TNT seems completely out of proportion. Svartner (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I didn't know about this article, however I feel it has more than enough validity, it's pretty much well sourced. There are some qualms with it and the criteria might need to be adjusted. But the nomination hasn't provided any policy other than this is trivia and this feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nominator. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT. Would also support a merge back to List of fictional canines. SirMemeGod  14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge with List of fictional dogs in animated television. Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner and Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog) are the only two articles that exist for the things listed here. Not enough to have a valid list article. There is a list called List of fictional dogs in animated television that has Snoopy, Huckleberry Hound, Jake the Dog, Goofy, Max Goof, Muttley, Pluto (Disney) that have their own articles. Astro and Mr. Peanutbutter have enough content in their show's character articles to be included on a list like this. Clifford (character) article no longer exist, just redirects to a token mention of the character in the main article for that series. Still a notable enough dog to be on a list, so not everything listed should be required to have its own article. Dream Focus 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But then what will be the title of the merged list? keep the title List of fictional canines in animation? You suggest to merge the dogs into this, correct? I am not opposed to your proposal nor to a merge back if other users do no think that this list and other that are currently splits from the general list are suitable WP:SPLITLISTs. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines per WP:ATD, but I believe this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The vast majority of the already-short list is WP:LISTCRUFT, could be merged into List of fictional canines, where an empty section already exists. SirMemeGod  14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines, this precise of a list is unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entire list is WP:LISTCRUFT. Should more likely than not be merged into List of fictional canines if not deleted. SirMemeGod  14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Animal, and Entertainment. SirMemeGod  14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional canines. That this was split when it's so short confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines, this precise of a list is unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of fictional canines, though even that list needs cleanup and sources to meet NLIST, which can be discussed later. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galician exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete potentially endless lists of trivial examples of an obvious phenomenon. —Tamfang (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate largely unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Malta. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: another potentially endless list of examples of the trivial fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it; no need for another potentially endless list of trivial examples. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss. I do not understand how there are just 8 articles of exonyms right now in AfD, each one with its own discussion, when the same reasons can be applied to the 92 articles that populate Category:Lists of exonyms, or at least, to the 43 mentioned in {{Exonyms per language}}. It would not be fair to delete these 8 articles and allow Greek exonyms, Spanish exonyms or Dutch exonyms to survive when they are essentially the same concept of list in a different language. In my opinion the proposals should be centralized into a single discussion of all articles, the navbox and the categories. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there have been attempts to group all those articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus. Additionally, some of those (but probably not most) might be notable. toweli (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And some of the reasons I gave don't apply to some of the lists, not all of them are unreferenced (there may be at least a book/link in the references section), not all of them are indiscriminate (i.e. they focus on a specific region, like Hungarian toponyms in Prekmurje). They're probably still not wiki-notable, though. toweli (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all exonym lists are equal. I would preserve, for example, German names for places formerly in Germany or the Habsburg empire; or lists that concentrate on nontrivial differences. —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Veterans Benefits Administration regional offices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST - Wikipedia is not a directory for listing government's regional offices (that's what the Department's website is for - no indication any of these offices are remotely notable. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Kick channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [2] [3] [4]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-followed Twitch channels & List of most-followed TikTok accounts, so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists, this list serves a valuable purpose by documenting significant trends in an evident and impactful space. Claims that the list is “unmaintainable” due to dynamic follower numbers are not strong enough for deletion. Other Wikipedia pages regularly update stats like revenue, sales figures, or most-followed accounts, and the content remains relevant despite being dynamic. As a growing platform, Kick has generated significant media attention, and reliable sources regularly cover its top streamers. Listing the top 30 most-followed channels does not represent an indiscriminate collection of information; it focuses on the most popular accounts on one of the newest major streaming platforms, essential for cultural and media studies. The argument that Kick's controversies are the only notability factor ignores the clear public interest in tracking which creators hold the most followers. I agree that it needs better citations, but that will be fixed with time. I know that editors, including myself, will maintain and update this list as needed. A note about the last update date should address concerns about outdated information. Deleting this list would limit Wikipedia’s ability to document the evolution of social media platforms, especially those rising in relevance like Kick.JeanSegura (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally, we do not make deletion decisions based on what other lists (or articles) exist or do not exist on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that we're looking at this list's notability, not the notability of those other lists; those lists might be notable, or they might not, but the focus of this discussion is just this list. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand and agree with you that each list’s notability should be considered individually. However, it's important to note that this list meets the same standards as similar lists, which is why it meets the inclusion criteria based on its own notability. You will find media online that covers kick followers, just as it does for other platforms. Reliable sources such as "NBC News" have show their follower counts and impact. I really think that the notability of this list is okay, as the list is not merely about individual creators but about Kick's social impact. JeanSegura (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln cent mintage figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any notability for this WP:NOTSTATS list, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

United States cent mintage figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with United States cent mintage figures as a WP:ATD. If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: Do you wish to amend your !vote, now that the target has been added to the nomination? Otherwise, this AfD could be procedurally closed with no action due to the improper mid-process scope expansion. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "improper mid-process" as in after just 5 hours in a 1-week process, and after the only two responders explicitly asked to include it? Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see where Zxcvbnm agreed to this inclusion. Once he does, there's no problem. Until then, yes, this is an improper mid-process scope expansion, even if it was one minute after he !voted here. You've been an admin, you know how this works. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion." You are an admin, you should know how to read. Or to keep such personal remarks which add nothing to the discussion out of it, as they are obviously not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for sparking the confusion/argument, but I agree with Fram's addition of the parent list. Both fail WP:NOTSTATS, as said in the nomination. Every single "mintage figure" list is clearly just a database and I see no evidence presented that they are independently notable, I was leaving it open for someone to potentially present that evidence. I'm not sure I'd agree it's "improper" since nobody else actually registered their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Glad we cleared this up. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator, it should be noted that I split this article off from United States cent mintage figures per WP:SIZESPLIT. I have no preference for deleting or keeping the article, so long as the same is done to United States cent mintage figures. However, I am opposed to merging it back into the parent article. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I've added United States cent mintage figures to the nomination! Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ballroom and social dance albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pointless, neglected unreferenced list of redlinks --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In theory this could be a successful list. There are plenty of sources in google books to compile such a list, and properly source it. In other words, it is rescuable if someone feels like rescuing this list. It also wouldn't be a tragedy to let this one go until someone want to recreate it and work on it.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much doubt that any of them have reasonable coverage of ballroom dance albums. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog. Unless it is a glossary, we don't list redlinks. What really have a chance is List of salsa albums. For it, there is even Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album. And there are plenty of album articles such as Salsa Big Band. I very much doubt that ballroom music has a comparable level of coverage. --Altenmann >talk 16:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Dance, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First off, "social dance" is a very vague term. Second, there's nothing here that one or more categories can't do just as well, provided there are any notable ballroom dance albums. See Category:Albums by genre. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete by according to my arguments on the article's talk page. Рулин (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NLIST. What an odd page. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the request of Liz, this is summary of what I've written above and at the article's talk page.

This is a stand-alone list based on an authoritative reliable secondary source (that we can assume itself based on set of independent reliable sources), which has significant coverage and independent of the subject. Source of information is given and data can be verified. Filtering of records based on obvious criteria, routine calculations, and sorting based on indicated logical principle can't be considered as original research. Users are free to apply their own sorting by the table tool. There is also no contradiction with WP:NOT. So though the article is not great, I don't see enough reasons for deletion.

The list contains evaluation of life expectancy in regions of many countries that doesn't have their separate pages about this topic. The principle of region comparison is not an original research by itself, but presentation of data, within the framework of the encyclopedia tools, that allows people to do their own independent conclusion. So I consider the article as valuable page of Wikipedia. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of storms named Hugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD undone by author. WP:NLIST not met here. Did a search and could only find Hurricane Hugo as the main topic. Although it is a WP:SETINDEX, it is still required to meet the notability requirements of a WP:STANDALONE. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as author. Harmless storm index article. It seems that the nominator isn't at all familiar with these types of pages (and I've created numerous SIA's). The name Hugo has been used in more than one basin, so the name perfectly qualifies for a storm index article; and there's a strong possibility that it gets re-used in the future since it has been included in the list of names for the 2024–25 European windstorm season. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SIAs don't have to be a notable topic themselves but may be a list of topics that are notable on their own.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER - the 1989 hurricane is very obviously the primary topic. Hatnotes linking the two pages should do the job. JavaHurricane 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I'm aware of WP:SETNOTDAB, and it doesn't change my view: where a SIA consists of only two entities, where one is clearly the primary topic (and in this case, the other entity, the 2018 windstorm, doesn't even have its own article), hatnotes are a more efficient method of handling the situation than a full-fledged list. And as for Yoris's argument, WP:CRYSTAL applies - future systems sharing the name can be handled at the time they actually happen.

  On a side note, I'm interested in knowing why a SIA about systems of the same name is not, in practice, a disambiguation page. JavaHurricane 19:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support hatnotes if it weren't common practice to create a storm index with only two entries. See Category:Set index articles on storms, which is filled with lists containing only two entries (e.g. List of storms named Andrew, List of storms named Beta, List of storms named Evelyn, etc.), so for consistency's sake this one should be kept as well. And I hate making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just couldn't avoid it. Also, I don't think the winter storm is relevant enough for mentioning at the Hurricane Hugo article (not even as a hatnote), since hurricanes and winter storms are completely different weather systems, and it would be odd for someone to confuse them both. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point there also exist counterexamples - such as 1935 Labor Day hurricane's hatnote. Don't think it is even that odd to confuse tropical and non-tropical cyclones - the term "storm" can be quite ambiguous for an uninitiated reader. On the former point, I repeat my previous question. JavaHurricane 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's likely because the 1935 hurricane is unnamed (i.e. has no official name), and was named "Labor Day" because it made landfall on that exact date. However, I see no counterexamples for storms that have official names, at least none that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per javahurrincae Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cyclone Yoris and Noah - don’t see any valid reasons for deletion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are three topics in the SIA. Tavantius (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Also, this is covered by Baseball Almanac and I'd imagine baseball-reference though I haven't seen a direct source. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Are those sources secondary and WP:SIGCOV for this topic though? Mere statistical database entries don't count towards notability; the sources need to provide fleshed out prose and context directly about this list topic. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not advocating for a !keep. Just merely pointing out the references that are to be pointed here. Baseball Almanac is considered reliable and covers the statistical aspect. Beyond that, I'd say each record is likely to house some WP:SIGCOV from the player article. However, the grouping may not suffice for deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Well can you please provide more specific usable links (the Baseball Almanac link you supplied comes up as an error without rendering anything meaningful) or quotes of the source material so they can be judged and examined by the community? I'm afraid your argument is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as of the present moment. Notability is demonstrated via evidence of sufficient source material, not the belief or assertion of such. WP:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders is a current example of evidence-based WP:NLIST notability being demonstrated in a similar context (sports stats list). Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh it did, let me fix the link. My argument is more like, "watch out". Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Yes, I was already aware of the bundled right-fielder AfD as someone who participated there. I was referring to this Baseball Almanac external link you provided, which incurs a 404-type error. Left guide (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing at a time, Left guide. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Is this the Baseball Almanac source you've been alluding to? If so, it unfortunately doesn't contribute towards WP:NLIST for this particular topic. It has a table with a collection of random outfielder double play stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with secondary prose about three random factoids, but nothing about this list topic specifically. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Forgot to mention in the nom that the content within the article's two sources don't discuss this list topic at all. They're being used in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion to verify tangential details. And this in the external links section is not secondary or SIGCOV; raw stats tables don't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Left guide: I'm not !voting here because the nom is out of balance in my opinion. Would you consider bundling all of these:
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a pitcher leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a first baseman leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a second baseman leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a third baseman leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders
  • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders
    • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders
    • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders
    • List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders
• If all of these were nominated for deletion or merger into a new List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders article, I would support that. As it is, to only nom catcher, pitcher and outfielder is a no-go for me. Pasting this comment on the catcher, pitcher and outfielder AFDs. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BX,

First it's too late to make this a bundled nomination. This has to happen at the beginning of an AFD discussion, not midway through. Second, a number of these articles are already being discussed in AFD discussions. They should appear as pink links. You can voice your opinions at these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have commented at all that were nom'd. Don't have the pink thing installed tho. That's why I quasi-voted as a no-go for me. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I didn't even know how many were involved. I would, if Left Guide were okay with it, withdrawing our respective noms to create one mega bundle. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best way forward IMO. TYVM. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14 and BX: As Liz (an experienced regular AfD admin) says above, we're past the point of no return in withdrawing or bundling these even if we wanted to, since there are extant non-keep !votes from other community members in basically all of these. I actually plan to nominate the remaining "double plays by position" articles sometime soon, but it takes precious time to do a thorough good-faith WP:BEFORE search for each individual article to see if there's anything encyclopedically salvageable, and other commitments both on Wikipedia and in real life means the research can't always be easily done all at once. In any case, each nomination should be treated on its own merits. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think the article fails the guidelines, I suggest cutting the article down, but I don't think it should be deleted. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for SM Mall of Asia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Rogers Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weak statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Rogers Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at The OVO Hydro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for The OVO Hydro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Kia Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Kia Forum. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Araneta Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Araneta Center. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Canada Life Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Canada Life Centre. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Golden 1 Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Significant referencing problems. mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: These three sources (all independent, secondary, and reliable) collate entries of this list topic together as a group, thus satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are just schedules (and they only cover 2024), so they don't satisfy WP:NLIST because they're not significant coverage. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have a point; I hadn't previously inspected the sources in that manner, but now I have. In that light, delete. Left guide (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Sydney SuperDome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weak statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for Sydney SuperDome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of all the nominations in this set, I was most prepared to find some WP:SIGCOV of "History's greatest events at O2 Arena" or some such -- and yet I didn't. I don't see any sources discussing this set of events as a group, so ultimately this article violates WP:NOR and fails WP:NLIST. (I also don't see any meaningful navigational value per WP:LISTPURP.) Obviously, notable acts can be discussed at the main page for O2 Arena. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Movistar Arena (Buenos Aires) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Contains only events since the end of 2019, only concerts. Completely unreferenced. mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "soft deletion"? What attributes make an article eligible or ineligible for soft deletion? -- mikeblas (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mikeblas,

For policy, see WP:NOQUORUM. Basically, Soft Deletion is treating an AFD discussion with low attendance as a PROD, proposed deletion. They are seen as uncontroversial deletions and if an AFD closes as a Soft Deletion, this allows an editor to ask for the article's restoration at WP:REFUND. AFD closures are not eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) there are any Keep votes (hence deletion is not uncontroversial) or b) an article has been PROD'd before or brought to AFD before. Does this explain things sufficiently? Many AFDs that have been relisted but have no participation or just one editor arguing for "Delete" are closed as Soft Deletions. It can be seen as preferable to additional relistings which may or may not result in additional participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't heard of that AfD outcome before. But your note is confusing; isn't every AfD "already at AFD"? Therefore, none would ever be eligible for "Soft Deletion". -- mikeblas (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant a previous AFD discussion, prior to the one that the article is currently involved in. And Soft Deletion isn't uncommon, if you look through a past AFD daily log page, you'll see plenty of discussions with that closure especially these days now that the number of editors participating in AFD discussions has decreased. With some AFDs, we are lucky to have 3 or more editors voicing their arguments unless it is a hot button subject like those involving current political situations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I relisted this after a "procedural keep" vote in a bulk nomination. I was told that there wouldn't be prejudice against re-listing it, but now I'm finding that there is. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at AsiaWorld–Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No inclusion criteria, very weak referencing. mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Central Harbourfront Event Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly defined inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Hong Kong. Skynxnex (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Civic Arena (Pittsburgh, PA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly defined inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the list notable as a group? There are other arenas of similar size listed that have similar lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_events_by_venue Jasonstru (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list isn't notable as a group because it fails WP:NLIST. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean this is notable. (Also, note that many in that category have been already nominated for deletion.) -- mikeblas (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Toyota Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT: too narrow. Now if it had included only blonds born in January ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far too specific to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - To repeat my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders: There are too many other DP articles. If anything all three OF (LF/RF/CF) DP lists should be merged/redirected to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders. I don't see why RF is targeted over CF or LF. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here the rationale used for closing the CF AFD:
    • The result was no consensus‎. NLIST states, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." This AfD reflects the present lack of consensus on this wider issue.
  • Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can add those to the AfD, I see no problem with merging/redirecting to them. This one was just part of my patrol. Conyo14 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It would probably be a more productive discussion, yes. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying my !vote now stands at Merge & redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders after all 3 were nom'd. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or at least partially merge to the outfield double play article. I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable, but double plays by specific position is relevant to the general outfield article. Although maybe limit the specific position lists to 10 or 20 players. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice I have updated the AfD to include List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders and List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders. Also pinging original !voters if they want to update their !vote. @BX:, @Clarityfiend:, @Esolo5002:, @Rlendog: Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: I agree that the split by position is largely the issue, which is why I support a merge that may allow the list to pass WP:NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: No indication that WP:NLIST is satisfied here, which requires in-depth coverage from independent secondary reliable sources collating an article's list entries together as a group. All three articles fail that standard at present. Left guide (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I oppose any merge or redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders since that page is an equally problematic failure of WP:NLIST that will inevitably be deleted soon anyways. That's just kicking the can down the road and creating more unnecessary administrative and editorial work in the future for no real gain. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all and the rest Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Reywas92 on this. It's not particularly notable to have the 49th most double plays at your position. If I found this in a records or highlights section of a player page I'd remove it as cherry picked. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Deletion and Merge. However, the merge target article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders which is also up for an AFD discussion. So, this discussion can't close as a possible Merge until the fate of that article is determined. You might consider participating in that discussion, too, so it can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dear me. Let's see.

WP:SALAT has nothing to do with this situation. Besides some housekeeping notes, it gives three annotated examples of the types of lists to avoid:

• "list of brand names" (Way too broad, could have millions of entries)
• "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" (Of no interest to anyone)
• "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" (Does not contribute to the state of human knowledge)

This list is not remotely like any of those, not even close.

Another editor wrote "I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable", but then why would you want to want to be in this discussion if you don't know that? (Narrator: they are.)

WP:NLIST, c'mon. If you think that this dataset has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" very many times, you must not read much in depth about baseball, in which case why are you trying to erase the work of editors who apparently have. It's late, and I shouldn't have to go get refs to prove the sky is blue.

And in addition to that, the nomination might be malformed. Not sure. I'll leave that that to an admin to decide. I got here from the center fielder article and that is confusing and it took me a bit to figure out what was going on -- apparently it was made into a group nom midstream, which is not a deal-killer but tricky, and not made clear enough, all the articles in the class are supposed to right up top, and that might be important enough that we want to start over. And if so well we have a wikiproject on baseball and maybe there would be the place to start with a discussion on the general question of "should we have these types of articles generally"? We're not going to be deleting or merging the shortstops DP article (if we are, just shoot me), so why are we singling out outfielders in particular, etc etc etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of that argument can be summarized with WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and proof by assertion. Also, the examples provided in WP:SALAT are just that, examples, it's not meant to be exhaustive; the concept or principle is what matters. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Left Guide, I'd like to see the sources. Conyo14 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the nominator said that Baseball Reference is a source (which it is, altho you might have to have a subscription). Extremely reliable source. We don't need multiple sources I believe.

I don't know what so say about WP:SALAT thing. It doesn't say or imply "You should avoid these sorts of things, but... um there are lots of other things you should avoid but we aren't gonna say, wink wink, use your imagination". You could invoke SALAT against literally any list if you liked.

I'd prefer not to be SHOUTED AT thanks. And no I'm not going to stop washing my cat and look up sources for you when WP:BEFORE has not been done into the corpus of books, many available thru the Internet Library and library loan, which is a lot of work but for a group of articles of this calibre would be called for. Since you are taking it upon yourselves to participate here, you ought to know that the rubric for keeping is not "is the article ref'd" but "can the article be reffed with reasonable effort".

"Other stuff exists" only applies if that other stuff should also not exist. Right? Am I wrong there? As to proof by assertion:

Proof by assertion [is when] a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers

How dare you. This would be insulting if it wasn't so obviously just throwing words so it looks like you have an actual argument. Way to turn this into a playground fight. I wrote one gosh-darn post, cogent enough and not terribly prolix I don't think.

Look. It's apparent that you guys are looking for an excuse to delete these perfectly good articles, to the point where it's a problem. If you are making a regular practice of this it's a big problem. You obviously didn't read my post with the position "Hmmm let's see what this guy has to say and maybe consider it" but rather "I'm not changing my mind, I am here to eradicate this work, period, for reasons of my own, so I'll only read it to look for ammo to achieve that end." Sheesh.

I also would like to remind the closer that it's not a vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Baseball Reference is a source for this list, but secondary sources are required to establish notability. WP:SECONDARY:

A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Can you indicate where in that source there is thought, reflection, analysis, evaluation, or interpretation? Left guide (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, if you are unable to identify secondary coverage in Baseball Reference, can you please provide other sources which show secondary coverage of this list topic? Left guide (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thorough search of sources, but found nothing on this subject nor its sisters in the bundling. Baseball reference is a good source, but it's also the only source to which I say it's not enough. Also, calm down. I just want to see the sources you're talking about and then analyze them. If you did a WP:BEFORE, which should be done by voters too, then please provide. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary duplication of List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, it is NOT an "exact" duplication. The ranking leader lists are not identical. I am not saying keep or delete just pointing this out. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Monstrously huge and growing unmaintainable fancruft list where most of the tracks do not pass WP:NMUSIC. This is a piece for Schott's Miscellany. Still fails WP:NLIST. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article has already survived two attempted AfDs easily, and neither of those had a single vote to delete. The nominator this time was also the nominator of the second AfD, and this latest nomination has no acknowledgement of any of the successful arguments made by "Keep" voters previously. The second AfD did have some discussion of how the article is tough to maintain due to the singer's enormously prolific career, and perhaps splitting into multiple articles (perhaps by decade) could be considered. Otherwise this nomination is merely an attempt to pretend that the idea didn't already fail twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely not possible to handle this list. Fails WP:NLIST. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion given the large participation on the 2nd nomination and the lack of participation here. Also, given two previous AFDs, this discusion is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the article clearly passes NLIST. This is neither WP:FANCRUFT, nor some indiscriminate collection of information, as the information in list is factual list of songs that were recorded. Asha Bhosale has been included in the Guinness book of world records for that source. As someone mentioned in the previous AFD not having this list will be stupid. If you folks personally can't handle it, then post about it on relevant wikiprojects, and stop working on the article. When the article "list of missing persons" got big, it was not deleted, it was split in decades — something which had been suggested to you already. Kindly stop nominating same notable article again-and-again. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but improve). I already commented above but will formally vote here, because no viable argument has ever been made to delete this article. Two previous AfDs passed with flying colors with all votes to keep in compliance with policy, which the current nominator ignored. The one delete vote here, on how to "handle" the article, is invalid per several sub-policies at WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Granted, the article is indeed unwieldy, and like the above voter I recommend splitting it up into several new articles by decade. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the nominator's response to those editors arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Maharashtra. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (and split?) I think the article meets NLIST. The maintenance rationale is invalid, in my view. We can't delete an article because it is not being maintained, and I think we could solve the maintenance issue, in this case, by splitting the article as was discussed in second deletion nomination. Ratekreel (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]