Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Lists[edit]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software[edit]

Comparison of photo stitching software (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)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas[edit]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas (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)

Unnecessary List. Some of these companies just have a presence in the city, not based in. We could add McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Starbucks to the list as well if we kept going that route. Currently there is a category covering the companies based there and at the moment there are only five. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per NLIST, these companies are not notable as a group for this characteristic. This list is short enough it can easily be addressed in Amarillo, Texas#Economy (with reliable sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the entire world has changed dramatically since this was created in 2006. Weyerhaeuser, for instance, sold its Amarillo assets a long time ago. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and other techno visionaries changed corporate business forever. Whatever businesses are operating in Amarillo in 2024, it's unlikely to be this list as is. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters[edit]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor 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)

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers[edit]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers (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)

Completely unreferenced list of parts manufacturers, with no indication that the set of these companies is somehow notable. Article was tagged by another user without proper followup but after having a look I'm taking it upon myself to complete the nomination. @Cowinatree: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry I didn’t follow through. I’m pretty new to this. Cowinatree (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders[edit]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center 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)

I'm not seeing any coverage of this specific statistic beyond the list maintained by Baseball-Reference.com ([1]), having searched the internet, Google Books, and Google Scholar. We appear to fall short of WP:LISTN, and this title does not seem to make for an appropriate redirect to any more general article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items[edit]

List of Torchwood items (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)

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries in Australia[edit]

List of libraries in Australia (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)

I have split the article into articles by state: List of libraries in Western Australia, List of libraries in Northern Territory, List of libraries in Australian Capital Territory, List of libraries in Tasmania, List of libraries in South Australia, List of libraries in Victoria, List of libraries in New South Wales, and List of libraries in Queensland. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - no policy based rationale for !delete offered by nom. JMWt (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename to Lists of libraries in Australia and link to the per-province lists. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep -- I like @Walsh90210's approach. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep agree with above, there is no need to have both the main list and the state-level lists and thus the former should be a list of the state-level lists of Australian libraries. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I think a list of libraries in Australia meets WP:NLIST which says that stand-alone lists can be created of things/people that are notable as a group and individual things on the list do not need to be notable or have their own wikipedia article if the whole group is notable. I am sure that references can be found to show that Australian libraries as a group are notable, including the Indigenous knowledge libraries and the Mechanics Institute libraries as they are so uniquely related to Australia's history. Secondly, Australian GLAM (galleries, libraries and museums) employees and volunteers are very active and prolific contributors to Wikipedia and a list of Australian libraries will honour their contribution. I have looked at the comments on the list Talk pages and here and I think there could be more clean up of the list and it could be divided into State and Special libraries as suggested. I would also be willing to make improvements to the list and I know other librarian-editors who may want to make edits as well.LPascal (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this idea, thank you for the suggestion! -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've been trying to work out how this list got marked for deletion. It seems to me that NotCharizard? thought it best to break the list into separate state library lists and then delete the main list? But now with all the comments and suggestions we may have all agreed to keep the one main list but structure it differently according to the Australian library system which has a national library, State libraries, local libraries under State governments, then special libraries which can be art libraries, science libraries, government department libraries, mechanics institutes, Indigenous libraries etc... If I am right, can someone (the original nominator for deletion?) please close the deletion discussion, so interested editors can help NotCharizard re-organise the main list and fill out the libraries? I don't want to start work on that main list of libraries if it's going to be deleted. LPascal (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the comments and suggestions saying to structure the list based on library categories? That's how it's done at the moment, but I haven't seen comments here saying that? It seems to consensus so far is to turn it into a list of lists? -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is is certainly a notable topic, the point is that the list was huge and still unfinished, so I split it into states and territory lists. Now the country one is a less complete duplicate. -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at List of Latin phrases (full) for a potential solution on how to handle this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the state articles to the main article (if not fully duplicative) and then delete all the non-notable libraries – the generic local ones every community has and the ones every university has don't have to be listed unless there's actually an article. Reywas92Talk 01:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my original plan also (for some states the list included every sub-branch of every library system, it was intense), but while going through the list I noticed that some quite big library systems that I think would defintely be notable enough for an article don't have one (I plan to begin drafting some soon), while smaller libraries that only just reach notability do. I am hoping that having the full list will encourage the creation of articles. -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - surely this not a valid afd target? per JMWt - and also comments by LPascale and Traumnovelle - JarrahTree 10:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on it being a duplicate (although less complete) of the state and territory articles. Sorry for not specifying clearly. -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of best-selling music artists (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)

It is not possible for anyone to record how many records of a particular artist have been sold nationally or internationally. Now even if we were to mention only what WP:RSs have said, then this list would be among those articles that fail that requirement the most.

This list is nothing but a WP:LISTCRUFT. This list has been probematic to core. Various RfC have been carried out but there has been no solution for this list.[2][3]

As noted by the reliable sources, Elvis Presley, The Beatles are widely regarded to have sold more than 1 billion records,[4][5] while Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records.[6] However, this page is evidently misrepresenting their figures.

This list does not make mention of Bing Crosby who is known to have sold over 900 million records.[7] Could it be because Crosby does not have enough fans who are eager to impose their POV on this page? That appears to be biggest factor behind the names (at least the top ones) found on this list.

Not just that, but this list does not even list any artists from the most populated countries like India and China where some artists have clearly sold more than 200 million records such as A. R. Rahman,[8] Wei Wei[9] and more.

It would make more sense to have this list deleted instead of wasting any more time on it. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Hundreds of Wikipedia articles mention total sales figures of music artists and bands, so it can be asserted that the existence itself of this List is more than coherent. Apart from that, it contains very valuable information for the reader, such as the total amount of certified sales of each artist/band, with numerical (ergo, objective) data from multiple music certification systems of different countries/markets.
    The claimed sales figures, even if they are estimates, are supported by RS from news organizations (as stipulated in the List's guidelines). It is true that there are sources that claim the figure of 1 billion records for The Beatles [10], Jackson [11] and Presley [12], but there has been a consensus for years not to include such high figures as they were considered inflated.
    In those two RfCs mentioned above, the total deletion of the List was never considered, but rather had the objective of improving it, especially the last one, which modified the methodology previously used in the List, removing its percentage-based fabricated requirements (which were defended by the user Harout72, who incurred in WP:OWNERSHIP and decided to cease his activity on Wikipedia when he saw that the methodology he defended was going to be changed). These changes, results of a voting, make it now possible to include artists like A. R. Rahman or Wei Wei. It is true that perhaps it should have been done earlier, but there is certainly a consensus to do so. Indeed, you can see on the List's Talk page that we have been discussing the inclusion of these artists this week.
    Salvabl (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct
    Apple Corps, the record company that owns the Beatles stated the group had sold 600 million records which predated this article as they were listed at 1 billion at the time.
    "Apple Corps Ltd. was founded by The Beatles in 1968 to look after the group’s own affairs. The London-based company has administered the catalogue of The Beatles releases of the 1960s that have sold to date more than 600 million records, tape sand CDs." [13][14][15]
    For Elvis Presley, his record company Universal Music Group states that he has sold 500 million records to date "Widely acclaimed as the best-selling solo music artist of all time, Presley has sold more than 500 million records and holds the distinction for most songs charting on Billboard's Top 40 with 114 hits". [16][17]
    For Michael Jackson, Sony Music Group stated he had sold 750 million records around the time the Beatles were claimed to have sold 600 million records [18][19]
    This page as such is largely accurate barring a few outdated references. Never17 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: there's literally no reason to delete this article. We already reached a consensus from various editors to improve the page. Also Elvis Presley is claimed to have sold 500 million records Reuters (2022) - 500 Million , along with The Beatles NME (2024) - 500 Million and Michael Jackson Yahoo (2024) - 500 Million. This article is also far more reliable than the list of best selling authors page and generally one of the most well put together on the website and has been cited by Guinness World Records and various other media outlets
    Never17 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - an article not yet being "good enough" is not alone reason to delete it. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - As per above, the article just needs better sourcing and the topic has many reputable sources on it already. Sharrdx (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, the credibility factor is of utmost importance. It is as you stated problematic. If readers dispute the validity of this list in any format, then we have a problem, for we have no credibility. You mentioned Bing Crosby? Since 1926 and beyond, it is believed that yes, as you stated, that he may have reached that astronomical figure of what 900 million? and yet, where is he on the list? Where is Nana Mouskouri? Who sings in multiple languages and most importantly, according to an extensive number of sources she has sold over 350 million albums worldwide, and globally speaking, she is considered the best-selling female artist of all time. She is also nowhere to be found on this list. Moreover, other entertainers who I have mentioned in the past who are nonexistent in this list/article are Rocio Dúrcal, Rocio Jurado, Charles Aznavour, Roberto Carlos among the notables, who are not accorded in unit sales and are erroneously missing. All these artists have sold millions of units internationally. Also, for improvement purposes are some of the record claims, which are also dubious. Most notably, Julio Iglesias who in just about all websites and reputed reliable global sources establish him in the echelons of 300 million records sold globally and not the 150 million claimed by the Wikipedia article. I could go on and on with example after example stating without reservation that yes, we perhaps have a credibility problem. However, we can make adjustments and improve these omissions.
Case in point: there are other entertainers' who are also European descent and should never be omitted from this list or any list, such as the legendary Spanish singers (Raphael and Camilo Sesto), but for reasons unbeknownst to many, there are not. Furthermore, add to this credibility problem the Elvis Presley and Beatles factor; Without question and with respect to those who state that their sales are inflated, they are just too many sources being indicative that these two acts have easily surpassed the billion mark in sales. So, with all these examples that are obviously flawed, do I think that this Wikipedia list/article should be eradicated or faced deletion? No!! No!! No!! we must work to improve it. We have knowledgeable contributors previously mentioned who can make the proper adjustments and corrections to this list/article so it can be the very best it can be, to the perfected core. I for one, believe in the collaborations and countless contributions of these very capable writers/editors and users who I have previously mentioned in the past. In closing, I share the sentiments of these users and contributors who want to keep it. Let us not delete this article for not being good enough but improve on it so it could be more than just good enough. It could be the envy of all other website articles, due to its authenticity and factuality. Let's make it work!! Victor0327 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely a listcruft and is used for POV pushing. I don't see a List of best selling authors. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of best-selling fiction authors 170.203.201.93 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page has numerous inflated and questionable inclusions like William Shakespeare selling 4 billion books (how can you even prove that?) Or Agatha Christie selling 2 billion books, completely unreliable.
    Now compare that to this, it's fairly easy to prove most of the numbers provided based on the individual claimed sales figures for each of their releases. Nothing is inflated Never17 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already said above. Breaktheicees (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per all the reasons stated above by multiple users. — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources give ample coverage of the bestselling musicians, this something notable they mention. You can use the talk page to discuss any editing that needs to be done if you believe someone should be added or information is outdated. Dream Focus 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like all of the objections in the nomination statement can be overcome with editing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there is doubt over the list that it is being used simply for promoting particular fans' POV. The main articles of these artists already have details on how many records they have sold. I don't see why this list is needed. desmay (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you believe its needed or not is irrelevant. WP:NOTNEEDED. And its not just fans, many people are simply curious, which is why in the past 90 days, it has had 543,364 pageviews. Dream Focus 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The media quite literally uses this page all of the time when mentioning popular music acts, they will always quote Wikipedia's sales figures for the artist in question. It makes no sense to get rid of this page. There are minor issues with it, but it's absolutely useful and generally very well put together Never17 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree: We need a best-selling list so avid music lovers, musical pundits and historians can use this list/page as a form of reference registry. Moreover, Wikipedia has references on an uncountable number of historical figures and subjects of study, for educational purposes, as an example, the lives of enlightened thinkers "Voltaire" and "Isaac Newton"; It also catapults into the lives of musical revolutionaries such as Elvis, Michael Jackson and The Beatles. This page could be used as a further intellectual study delving into a subject matter which many people are obviously interested in. The editors and contributors will make the right adjustments to make this list a factual coherent and cohesive one. Furthermore, and to alleviate the tensions among some contributors, POV pushing in pursuing an agenda based on fandom to any particular artist will be eradicated. We cannot promote "particular fans" POV as contributor desmay has stated. This shall not be an Elvis, Michael Jackson or Beatle fan page; but a truthful, unbiased, and impartial directory based on fact and intertwined with reputable reliable sources. As previously stated, the hard-working contributors and editor/writers for this best-selling list/article will make it work. Victor0327 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anybody who is saying that this fancruft can be improved with writing is simply not addressing the fact that this article has been impossible to fix because of its use as a fancruft. Wikipedia is not for that purpose. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most are in favor of keeping this article, we've had past attempts at trying to delete the article from fans who were upset about it and it's always been overruled. Never17 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per reasons stated above. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SEC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of SEC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY and dead links besides the YouTube posts, not offering anything to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (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)

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of Big 12 men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, one is a YouTube link, four are WP:PRIMARY and one is about the Championship Week. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are dead links, two are forums and some are guides and WP:PRIMARY. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 68 Ventures Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of 68 Ventures Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is WP:PRIMARY, one is a dead Twitter post, one is a media guide, and another is about the coverages to all 18 Bowl games. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present)[edit]

List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present) (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)

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; they consists of WP:PRIMARY, announcements, some appears to be rewritten from each other. Most of those are about the game itself, others are dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Because we need to continue edit for September as a Schedule Release Andrei Kenshin (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTSTATS would not apply as the information is explained, and WP:NOTROUTINE covers the nominated articles (which should be combined by the nominator as soon as possible because now editors are commenting) as typical and encyclopedic. Will comment further when I reply to the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Conyo14 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning? Please strike that, thanks. And countering misinformation is, I think, allowed. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009) (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)

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; most of those are about the game itself, others consists of WP:PRIMARY, YouTube and dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I answered this at another one of these multiple nomination attempts, SpacedFarmer please combine these as everyone who has answered so far has copied their answers to all three noms and we shouldn't have to do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Also, considering that it is the nom's choice to combine them or not, a procedural close would not be a valid !vote. Let them decide whether they want to do it or not. Conyo14 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: As I have commented, I've tried before but they go disastrously wrong. I cannot see what difference will this makes. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989)[edit]

List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989) (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)

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; both sources are about the game and nothing to do with the TV coverage or just a mere mention and another is a redirect link; not doing anything to help this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to trim and merge it into Monday Night Football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher supermarkets[edit]

List of kosher supermarkets (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)

This list should probably just be a category. It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word "kosher" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section. That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like this list is full of WP:ADVERTISEMENTs bordering on WP:NOTADVERT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I recently commented elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to whether the subject 'kosher supermarket' is even independently notable. Isn't it just the intersection of the set 'places selling kosher food' with an exceedingly-ill-defined 'supermarket' set? We appear to have built a list around a Venn diagram. Anyway, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, and anyone looking for say a local supplier of kosher goods would do vastly better to use Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump Kosher markets are core to many Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities that are strictly shomer kashrut. The presence of a kosher market is almost as important as the presence of a synagogue. It isn't just a meaningless Venn overlap. It is culturally and religiously significant. If there isn't a list, there should still be an article. A kosher supermarket isn't merely a "place that sells kosher food"; you can find a kosher section in almost any major grocery store. Whereas a kosher supermarket certified by a local vaad, that is supervised by mashgichim, that closes from Friday evening to Saturday evening...is something quite specific and defining. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in the list does it define 'kosher supermarket' in the terms that you describe. Properly sourced, an article on culturally and religiously significant, certified and supervised kosher-only stores would be absolutely appropriate (a list would be too long to be feasible, or useful), but that isn't the subject of this AfD. Instead, what we are discussing is a list of 'places that sell kosher food' that are described as (or call themselves) 'supermarkets'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely a listcruft. Orientls (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A kosher market is an important locus of Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities. I would argue that the kosher market is almost as important as the synagogue. At the very least, if not a list, there has to be an article on Kosher supermarkets. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's listcruft, simple as that. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Union broadcasters[edit]

List of Philadelphia Union broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and dead links, the only decent source is an announcment for a new announcer; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution broadcasters[edit]

List of New England Revolution broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, only consist of a single one about the 2023 season; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

Olympics on ABC commentators (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found this [[20]] (1/3), [[21]] (2/3), [[22]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBS commentators[edit]

Olympics on CBS commentators (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, staff rosters and announcements, some being nothing more than a guide; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:LISTN appears to be met with the 4th source in the article, combined with [[23]] and [[24]] describing the commentators as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As of now, about 43 sources have just been added. The hosts section and the 1998 Winter Olympics section as for intents and purposes been extensively covered and referenced, as well as the 1960 Winter Games. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main CBS Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom, I found the same sources as Let'sRun, but they mirror a WP:ROUTINE news source/press release than significant coverage, plus the rest of the list is just WP:OR anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on CBS on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Olympics on TNT commentators[edit]

Olympics on TNT commentators (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 (talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators[edit]

Olympics on CBC commentators (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army[edit]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (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 scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - unnecessary and duplicates content. Not actually even sure the R is needed. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playoff Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Playoff Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, those sourced are from forums, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of AFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

List of AFL Championship Game broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists entirely of forums, if not dead; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFC Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

List of NFC Championship Game broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, the majority of those are sources are from forums. The reliable sources are about the announcers, not much else, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru)[edit]

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of number-one hits of 1963 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1964 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1965 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1966 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin. --Cavarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to AMSOIL Arena#Events. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Amsoil Arena[edit]

List of concerts at Amsoil 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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of concerts at El Campín Stadium. A list of concerts at a medium-sized venue in a small city will not meet WP:NLIST. Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Minnesota. Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to to Amsoil Arena#Events. I was going to recommend merging into the main article for Amsoil Arena, however it appears the same list (or a very similar one) is already in the article. This is not notable enough for a standalone article, however is a good addition to the main article. Standalone list fails NLIST. Bgv. (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of World Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of World Bowl broadcasters (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)

Obvious unsourced listcruft of a group of broadcasters not notable as a group. Nominating so User:SpacedFarmer can't -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made post-nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failing [WP:LISTN]]. I'm not sure what the relister means by additions? A single source was added since the AfD, and its from IMdB. Similar to the other college bowls, it's WP:LISTCRUFT, with loads of WP:OR that is just trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

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

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

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.
I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [26]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm open to a redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD. I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV, while appearing to meet WP:LISTN. ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by color combination[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always been a big fan of the nom's work on the encyclopedia but I've got to disagree with Koavf on this one. This is one of the more useful list articles out there and I don't think the deletion rationale sufficiently articulated how this fails WP:NOT; this is just a list article. The terms "gallery" or "galleries" never appear at WP:NOT nor do any of the ctrl+f search results for "list" point to anything that would make this list article problematic. What makes this one different from other list articles? All due respect, I think the original research claim will need some substantiation, too. Is it original research to state that the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc all consist of the colors green, black, red, and white? I believe we do the same thing on the article Pan-Arab colors, so I don't exactly know what makes it different when it's in a list article format. Is it original research to state that the Flag of Germany consists of the colors black, red, and gold? Is the original research part saying the same thing about the Flag of Belgium and categorizing them both under the black, red, and gold section?
This isn't to say the article being discussed doesn't have room for improvement. It has quite a lot. But the biggest problem it faces is that it lacks a defined inclusion criteria, and that's something that can be fixed through a simple RfC, not an AfD. Maybe after this AfD is over, assuming the page isn't deleted, I'll suggest some possible criteria and start a request for comment. Some no-brainer criteria could be that you need to cite reliable sources to add a flag if it doesn't already have a standalone Wikipedia page.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. See WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article that discusses things, but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does "This is not an article that discusses things," not describe all list articles? As for "but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guidelines you're citing certainly don't apply here, for the following reasons:
  1. because "any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (WP:OR, under Acceptable Media, Section 3.3),
  2. because the list is "organized", "selective", and flag colors play a non-trivial part in vexillology (WP:TRIVIA, Section 3),
  3. and as User:Vanilla Wizard above puts it, the list "assists with article organization and navigation" (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Section 2.4.2) in ways that Wikimedia Commons couldn't do better.

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some color combinations (such as red, black, and green) are significant, the vast majority of these have no clear significance, so grouping them together inappropriately implies meanings where there is none. For instance, the flags of Brazil and Connecticut are in the same section, but they use colors in different ways (i.e., green is a reference to the House of Braganza for Brazil while it is used for grapevines for Connecticut, at least according to their Wikipedia articles). The lack of references in this article gives some indication of how meaningless these groupings are; where references exist, they tend to focus on very surface-level observations (example) and do not comprise significant secondary coverage needed to show notability. To address some of the counterarguments mentioned here:
    • I believe the comment about lists that assist with article organization and navigation refer to lists of lists and the like, where the lists are solely intended to direct readers to other articles, not to be a destination of their own. (Note that it mentions those lists are solely made of internal links – they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
    • While it is not OR to determine which colors a flag uses, it is inappropriate synthesis to group them together and imply connections between them: Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
    • WP:NOTGALLERY is absolutely applicable: Articles are not photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context (which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
    • I agree that most of this is WP:TRIVIA. There may be meaning to some color combinations, and those would be non-trivial vexillological facts, but in that case those combinations can simply be mentioned in their own articles or as a small section in another article. The rest are irrelevant.
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with  Vanilla that "this is one of the more useful list articles out there", and one I would certainly have visited myself if I had realized that it existed. That's not to say it can't be improved. One minor point is that "gold" is a silly word to mean "yellow". More important, it would be much easier to navigate if it were divided into sections: national flags; state or province flags; county flags; city flags; other flags. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

  • Keep with sourcing from [27] and [28].
  • Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

List of explorations (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)

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

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
    Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Algeria[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our AFD regulars? We need more AFD discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. ToadetteEdit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.
    If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.
    That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about Bangalore (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)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Watch Tower Society publications (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)

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

  • Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, Move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep, This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidgoodheart: You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
    • The Watchtower and Awake!
    • The Secret to Family Happiness
    • Questions Young People Ask
    • Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
    • Reasoning from the Scriptures
    • Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
    I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk). While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep !vote in the near future. Content to strike my !vote and defer to what you've found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with sourcing from [34], [35] and [36]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Lean Keep. Taking a quick look, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage when it comes to the broadcasters for the NBA All-Star Game. BornonJune8 has added also added sources so that it now exceeds 250 references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that WP:REFBOMBING does not help with determining if this meets the WP:NLIST, rather we need to see the broadcasters discussed as a group. That being said, the nom does seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let'srun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think that? I was defending my decision to nominate this list for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters[edit]

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

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

  • The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (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)

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

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

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[42] [43] [44] and [45] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [46], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [47], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets NLIST [48], [49], [50], [51]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population (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)


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

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

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,
ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).
    Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct issues here.
  1. On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
  2. On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).
Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)
    What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[52] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.
    Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[53] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [54] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.
The explanation given by the ONS is:
"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."
Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.
The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.
The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.
Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
    • Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
    • For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [55] and [56] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
    • The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [57] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
    • If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
    • The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists&oldid=1225277505"