Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:24, 7 April 2024

WP:DSLIST

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game of the Century (college football)

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

the article begins with an explanation that this term was applied to several college football contests played in the 20th century, and warns us that the term is ironic and subjective. the article then goes on to list 17 games, from the 20th and 21st centuries.

this list is, at best, original research. ltb d l (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NLIST and failure to check WP:BEFORE. NFL.com,[1] The Sporting News,[2] AP,[3] and Bleacher Report [4] all have lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:NLIST as a grouping discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 15:39, 8 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [5], [6], and [7], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: 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...—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2022 Commonwealth Games broadcasters, namely WP:NOTTVDIRECTORY and doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this is not a grouping discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 18:54, 10 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Latvia

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Latvia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 23 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Lithuania

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Lithuania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This doesn't pass the criteria established by the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 19 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Romania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE as does any of the other articles in this category. Halfadaniel (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is not an EPG because it doesn't list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules. We should also delete all these articles: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters ??? What is the difference? Cetateanul Rosu (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:12, 22 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal

(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, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 29 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ligue 1 broadcasters

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and France. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not wiki worthy. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE and doesn't meet WP:NLIST, like all the other football broadcaster lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost reads like a directory. Lorstaking (talk) 09:06, 12 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EFL Cup broadcasters

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Typical dynamic content that can be maintained in a session of the main scope of the competition. Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:43, 8 April 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Dominican Republic

(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, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Dominican Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. TH1980 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been nominated at an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE and subsequently fails the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 04:02, 15 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea

(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. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and South Korea. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:10, 29 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Philippines

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are made of entirely of announcments, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Philippines. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation later on. I originally created this article as a spin off of Broadcasting of sports events but the article has devolved into a list of every sports events broadcast in the country without discussing actual contracts. The parent article has an ugly {{globalize}} template and could use help for countries which are not dominated by Caucasians. I'd probably do that later on as my PC is busted. The Philippines has a rich history of this dating back to the 1950s with the broadcast of NCAA basketball championships (Philippines) and even had court cases on who should broadcast the UAAP on the turn of the century. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated in an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Howard; as with many WP:TV Fliipino articles he had good intentions but nobody has brought any sources (six of them here), and it's as usual a complete free-for-all of poor overall organization and especially for the basketball section which gets down to semi-pro junior leagues only the gamblers and family are watching, a complete failure to understand that a list article should be a list, not a compilation of 'network fan drama'. Nate • (chatter) 01:31, 14 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth

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

Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hong Kong, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I cannot see the relevance of such achievment. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in the British Empire and the Commonwealth is an arbitrary and silly grouping. Dan • ✉ 02:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather strange article. It has No relevance for people living in the three countries cited. --Artene50 (talk) 09:04, 9 April 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of home appliances

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

hopelessly open-ended and best left for a category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The rules clearly state you shouldn't delete a list because you prefer categories. List are always more useful than categories since they allow more information to be listed. Category:Home appliances exist, so this is a perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 22:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is establishing a selection criteria. I could probably cross well over the thousand pages mark for things that could plausibly be considered a home appliance. Everything from the Mangle to the Smart speaker to the George Foreman Grill. Don't forget brands too - your Magic Bullets, your Sodastream or your Vitamix. If a home appliance is just any kind of powered tool intended for consumer use, then let's make sure we cover our ground - the Treadmill, Shake weight, and any other fitness device ever sold on an infomercial are all fair game. Everyone needs to do some odd jobs around the house with their Electric screwdriver. It's too broad and I'm not sure how to make it a comprehensive article. Open to responses, currently leaning delete. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reference for where a reliable source called an item a "home appliance" could be required. Dream Focus 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just turned the article into a table and found reliable source references for some things listed on it. It also list what year the item was commercially available for the average home. Dream Focus 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home appliance; a separate page is not needed. It would also duplicate Small appliance, Major_appliance#Types, and List of cooking appliances, so it's superfluous. The missing examples above seem irrelevant though, the list should have criteria that excludes brands, but would include blender and Soda machine (home appliance). I don't think exercise machines are considered appliances, but either way there are other pages that can or do list home appliances so this one is not also necessary. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks objective inclusion criteria. I don't think a merge is needed - all of the things Reywas92 mentions are already linked at home appliance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the list should be restricted to home appliances that get asked about in censuses? 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:B5DB:C733:E510:202F (talk) 16:19, 24 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Montenegro

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, no source whatsoever. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Montenegro. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 12:07, 18 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 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.

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 23 April 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.

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 delete‎. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [8] [9] [10], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Agletarang (talk) 09:28, 2 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk)
Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [11] [12], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the introduction is clearly not a dictionary. the list defines some words but is mostly serving the functions of a list. should be fine enough as is to keep that too User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not a dictionary entry. I don't know what gave the nom the idea that articles about linguistics and etymology are somehow not encyclopedic, prompting them to launch their current "Ehrmagerd, werds!" deletion campaign. Owen× ☎ 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does not read like a dictionary entry, it is a list – and a quality one at that. ~ Dictionary (talk) 15:00, 14 April 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 April 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.

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. A possible merge target, if applicable, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French loanwords in Persian

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic of French loan words in Farsi is the subject of scholarship e.g 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it is, but we're not here due to notability concerns. If we were discussing an article about the French influence on Farsi, I'd vote to keep. The operative issue that this just a word list (a basically unref'd word list) and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion is not cleanup, unless it is so bad it requires WP:TNTing. Curbon7 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:TNT. If someone wants to do some improvement over at Persian vocabulary, that's fine. If someone wants to write an actual article on the influence of French on Persian vocabulary, that's also great. This is not that article; this is not an article. It's literally a list of words. There is nothing to salvage. PepperBeast (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In general, same reasons as Mccapra. This article's intro could be improved, like List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic.

Also, comment, but we've nominated a ton of these type of "Loan words" articles for deletion today.

it seems that we are having a discussion about a large swathe of articles across multiple deletion discussion, and we should instead focus on maybe a broader discussion of these? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Influence of the French language on Farsi and tag as unsourced and needing cleanup. BD2412 T 03:36, 21 April 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Australia. PepperBeast (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Google book search indicates that this topic is the subject of many published works and covered in many others. I think this is a valid topic and the purpose of our article is not to provide dictionary definitions so I think the nomination is wide of the mark. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Ingratis (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable list: meets WP:NOTESAL. Added further reading to the page. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:10, 8 April 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.

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. I don't see a consensus here. You are free to pursue other alternatives like Redirection or Merge but starting discussions on the article talk pages or make a return trip to AFD in a few months when participation levels in AFDs will hopefully return to high numbers which would make determining a consensus more likely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French words of English origin

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.

This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A selfie is égoportrait [13], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Gujarati

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Gujarat. PepperBeast (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No sources and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Sk1728 (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and RangersRus. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 10 April 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.

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 merge‎ to Bhojpuri language#Vocabulary. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bhojpuri words of English origin

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Jharkhand. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Bhojpuri language: A separate article is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Sk1728 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. On one hand, there are two apparently good sources. On the other hand, RangersRus makes a good point. A merge per Sk1728 is another option. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 10 April 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.

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 merge‎ to Self-replicating machine. In the now cleaned up / stubbified form. Sandstein 07:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-replicating machines in fiction

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus two years ago, and zero improvement since. The topic may be notable, but our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances self-replicating machines appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, it falls WP:GNG, mostly WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub if anyone wants to work on this, but otherwise I think blanking/redirecting this would be best as 100% of the content we have here is unencyclopedic (TVTROPIS lists and OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / (Oppose Merge per below The existence of these in literature, esp. science fiction, is hopefully obvious. Immediately, the topic reminded me of the fictional story by Philip K. Dick titled Autofac. If the article has problems, just work to improve it. I have not looked extensively at the WP:RS, but a quick search on Google scholar seemed to find a relevant article. Also [14], "Science fiction writers have kept pace. Phillip K Dick, Arthur C Clarke and Nobel-nominated Karel Capek have all toyed with the idea, before John Sladek based his 1968 satirical novel, the Reproductive System, on a self-replicating machine that goes wild. It set the scene for movies like the Terminator to tap into fears of robots capable of reproducing and taking over." Chapter 4 of this book starts "The growing popularity of the dystopian genre in early twentieth century literature was fuelled in part by a fear of how technology might negatively influence the development of human society [24]. Here we highlight works from the genre that involved ideas of machine self-reproduction and evolution". I think that WP:RS shows it is notable. I'm not a big fan of WP:TNT. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Piotrus Rather than WP:TNT, why not tag the portions you think could use sourcing and/or contact the editors who put the material in and put them on notice that if they can't find sourcing, their addition(s) will go. And when a new editor comes in and tries to add unsourced material, let then know right away that won't work. I have a similar article on my watchlist List_of_films_impacted_by_the_COVID-19_pandemic in which editors, esp. IP's, come in and add films about to be released that have no evidence they were impacted by the pandemic. I revert them and warn them. And I am slowly purging the list of films whose RS does not mention the pandemic. I'd rather teach the new editors to behave rather than destroy their "work". I have added this one, and can help in that regard.... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim The problem is that I think nothing here is rescuable except maybe the unreferenced lead. And if we let it be, nobody will bother working on this - this needs to be cut down to a sentence or two, and built up again from it. I'll ping User:TompaDompa who has rewritten and rescued more similar articles than me so the can give you a few examples (I am falling asleep now). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I don't know if you regularly edit X in fiction articles and are familiar with the rather specific set of common problems associated with them, but in case you do not and are not (as well as for the benefit of others reading this): Newcomers adding unsourced material because they genuinely haven't yet learned how sourcing works on Wikipedia is certainly a problem, but it is generally speaking a relatively minor one. The most common reason these articles are so bad is that they were created long ago when standards were either lower or not as diligently enforced, and have never been cleaned up properly. This article is a case in point: the (terrible) list existed on self-replicating machine until it was (correctly) removed by Harizotoh9 back in March 2017. That would have been the end of it, except Fixuture restored it to this stand-alone article in May 2017. It languished in this form until it was nominated for deletion by Piotrus in June 2022. That eventually went to deletion review—the upshot was that there was agreement that the article was not in a satisfactory state but disagreement about whether it should be fixed or deleted entirely (both the AfD and the Deletion Review were closed as "no consensus"). Nearly two years later, the article has still not been improved. This is, unfortunately, par for the course.

The core problem is that most editors do not know how to write articles on topics like this, and their intuitive best guess—emulating TV Tropes—is wrong. This problem was outlined by Uncle G back in 2008 in the essay WP:CARGO. The way to do it properly (also mentioned in WP:CARGO, though both the problem and solution are described in a slightly different way there than I do it here) is to find sources on the overarching topic (in this case, that would be self-replicating machines in fiction) and then use those sources to write about the topic, taking care to abide by WP:PROPORTION by presenting each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. This, of course, takes a lot more time, effort, and—frankly—skill than the typical TV Tropes approach.

The hope is that when people see what it looks like when done properly, they will at minimum stop doing it improperly, and perhaps even start doing it properly. To some extent it seems to have worked: there are now a handful of editors who know how to write such articles and are willing to do so. Their levels of proficiency vary of course, but that's not a problem since it is a trainable skill—when I look at some of my earlier efforts I find them to be rather mediocre (which is still way preferable to outright bad, as the TV Tropes-style lists are). On the other hand it has not worked nearly as well as I would have liked it to—there are still a large number of editors, even experienced ones who should really know better, who do not understand or do not accept that WP:PROPORTION applies to fiction-related content and that such content thus needs to be demonstrated to be a significant aspect of the overarching topic by citing sources on the overarching topic. Removing unsourced (or inadequately-sourced) content and explaining the sourcing requirements sounds like it should be a straightforward way to maintain these kinds of articles, but it isn't always. In my experience, it is usually easier to get through to the editors who want to include something without the proper sourcing when the article is already in decent shape than during the cleanup stage. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~~I'm still reading the rest of your response.~~ Are you willing to help us fix the current article? Or consider the solution I suggested? I looked again at the history and saw that it appeared to be a fork off of the "self-replicating machines" article. No, I have not edited much on the SciFi stuff. But I know the problems from teenagers coming in and not knowing the rules. I'm all for teaching them. Will finish reading the rest of your response soon. One reason I can't stand WP:TNT, is because then we lose *EVERYTHING* that was written before and who wrote it. I would much prefer just seeing all the text that is poorly sourced removed and editors who put it in notified about the problem of adding unsourced material. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim As someone who invoked TNT, note that I also favor preserving the history of a page, hence the suggestion of a redirect to the main article. Sooner or later someone will restore this, in a proper way. Maybe even now - TompaDompa just recently did so with regards at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind uploading in fiction, which in theory is still ongoing, but it will certainly end as keep. Note that the new article has next to nothign in common with the mess that I nominated (but said messis preserved in the history in case someone wants to check if there is something useful there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you want to preserve the history. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the benefit to leaving Mind uploading in fiction as a sub-stub-level separate article as opposed to a section at Mind uploading (and it currently happens to be wholly duplicated at Mind uploading#In fiction). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I finally found a moment to review the rest of your explanation. Thanks. I agree about the problem of WP:CARGO of amassing pointless lists. I have no reason to believe it should be difficult to clean this one up by focusing on what the WP:RS says about the significance the item has in fiction rather than just a list of things editors decided had the item (self-replicating machine). As in the examples you gave.

In this case, as I showed in my post, there are clearly reliable sources that discuss this. Why don't we amass a bunch of the best WP:RS and put it on the talk page? Then, attach the WP:RS to those items that are listed in the WP:RS--minimizing the current description to what the WP:RS says, and then delete all the items that have no WP:RS? And summarize what the WP:RS says about the topic. The result of that would a little like List_of_utopian_literature.

With more work it could evolve to be not even be a list at all--like the examples you gave--or like Postmodern literature, Literary modernism, Utopian and dystopian fiction.

As for stopping new additions, as long as it is on our watchlists, it should be no problem IMHO. I am willing to start doing that now, unless that would somehow mess up this AfD. Does anyone object to my moving forward with this plan? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching sources to examples that were originally added without them is an approach that well-meaning editors have taken in the past with articles like this, but unfortunately it is merely a cosmetic fix that does pretty much nothing to ensure properly reflecting the balance given to different aspects by the sources. When we start with material added by editors based on what they personally felt were important and add sources after the fact, we end up reproducing and compounding those editorial biases. The way to get articles to reflect the balance of the sources is to use the sources as a starting point from which the article is built.

Turning this into a prose article is definitely the way to go. Experience tells us that the list format itself encourages the addition of content that lacks proper sourcing. The four articles you mention are not really examples to emulate—they are all (at time of writing) rife with unsourced (and likely also inadequately-sourced, though I haven't taken a close enough look to say that for certain) material. TompaDompa (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire list, since it needed to go anyway. Feel free to start building an article based on proper sources unencumbered by the previous mess. TompaDompa (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that based on the sources I've found, this seems to mostly be discussed in the context of nanotechnology, so covering it at Nanotechnology in fiction (itself an article that needs to be rewritten from scratch) might be an alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I do see your point about working from the WP:RS first rather than attaching ref to the list. It doesn't bother me that you deleted all the entries in the list that were not properly referenced. Those who want them back can ask.

I put in the three refs I found.

I disagree that this is primarily about nano-technology--even though that is mentioned in some of the sources. If you look at something like Autofac, those machines were not nano. I imagine there are countless other examples that are not nano. But it might be a subgenre of the self-replicating machines. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, it's not whether the stories are about nanotechnology but about whether the sources are. Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia covers it in the "Nanotechnology" entry, for instance. Stephen Webb's All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future likewise covers self-replicating machines in the context of nanotechnology. George Mann's The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does too. And so on, and so on, and so on. Of course, these may not be representative of the overall literature on the topic. The gray goo scenario probably goes a long way towards explaining why this is the context in which so many sources discuss self-replicating machines. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I think there is tremendous potential here, with self-replicating machines being something of a fictional trope, but this largely unsourced list isn't it. BD2412 T 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since no such things exist, why is this a separate topic? Isn't the von Neumann probe just a particular instance published in academic, rather than popular, literature? Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the article has been effectively TNTed and is being rewritten. As such my initial rationale no longer applies. Unless the article reverted to its older version, I also favour keeping the new version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine. The original article was, obviously, useless - this one is better but enough of a stub it simply does not merit a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Self-replicating machine per Zxcvbnm. There isn't much to say here, now that the unreliable sources are cleaned-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one good source that covers the topic in-depth and at length: Rise of the Self-Replicators: Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve [Wikidata] (2020) by Tim Taylor [Wikidata] and Alan Dorin [Wikidata]. Part of chapter 4 (pp. 29–34) deals specifically with the topic of self-replicating machines in fiction, and part of chapter 7 (pp. 83–89) touches upon it a bit more. If there are more sources of this caliber it should be possible to write a pretty good article on the topic. With only this and sources where the coverage is a lot briefer and/or surface-level (or indeed lower-quality sources) however, I don't think there's a realistic approach to doing so without falling into over-reliance on a single source. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine - With the cleaned up version of the article effectively eliminating the reason why a split occurred initially, it makes sense to merge it back into a single article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my original !vote to include "oppose merge" [15]. Why? Although I agree the new version is short enough to justify a merge, that was after a huge deletion was just made on 4/6/24. Also, I appear to be the only one did a search and found some WP:RS. I would be surprised if there is not significantly more in literature books about science fiction and dystopic novels.

Also, the merge suggestion is to bring it back to "self-replicating machines" where I believe it was originally forked from. Although relevant to that article, I believe this topic is not primarily about abstract or theoretical concepts about such machines (as proposed by inventors like Descartes, von Neumann, Alan Turing, or recent discoveries in Nano-tech) that just happened to be fictionalized with the idea that these might be technologically feasible and desirable. Some of the most notable fiction writers like Philip K. Dick and Stanley Kubrick (or writers of Terminator) that use them frequently portray these with a clear sense of dread about what these machines might do if "left to their own devices", similar to a works like 1984, We_(novel), Logan's Run (film), and countless dystopic novels and films. These themes suggests to me that the portrayal of the machines in fiction is not about primarily about the technology itself, but is instead about telling important stories about humans and their relationship with technology and warning about perceived dangers.

Hence, I believe it should be available from both directions (fiction and technology) rather just technology side.

@Zxcvbnm,Shooterwalker,Rorshacma,Greenish Pickle!: Those of you suggesting a merge, can you please address my concerns? Some of you didn't give much reason for your !vote and few discussed what is in the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it stands, it offers no benefit to readers to have this as a separate article. It is a stub that half of is simply repeating the information found in the first couple of sentences in the Self-replicating machine article. Per WP:NOPAGE, even notable topics don't automatically need to have stand-alone articles when covering it as part of a broader topic gives greater context, which I believe is the case here after the terrible TV Tropes style list was correctly removed by TompaDompa. It is also important to note that merging now does now preclude it being split back out in the future - if a full prose article that is not just a list of examples can be developed, it can be easily restored as a separate article then. But until that is done, I would not advocate keeping this as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 10 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia

AfDs for this article:

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Europe. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:25, 15 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Albania

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Albania. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable trainwreck of a list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Albania would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 13 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belarus

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Belarus. BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST, is not a grouping in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 8 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belgium

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Belgium. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. Doesn't meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 15 April 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:58, 15 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bulgaria

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bulgaria. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Bulgaria would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 12 April 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.

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 delete‎. on the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'll just add that there have been about two dozen AFDs on articles in this same model for different countries and except for this one and Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia, I have seen no support for Keeping these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Croatia

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Croatia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep honestly don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here, since this isn't a list of when programmes will be on television but rather information on rights holders for important events - this isn't the best article, needs better referencing, but I think it could either be better solved through editing (adding more sources) or a better deletion nomination (that those sources don't exist). SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. From what I see, coverage of TV rights doesn't really go much deeper for most countries than just announcements that a certain channel now has broadcasting rights. There are some exceptions, for example where sports broadcasting rights are discussed as a subject for critical analysis, but in the majority of cases this information is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile-up of commercial facts - see WP:ROUTINE. BrigadierG (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my argument, but thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGLY - "asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility." BrigadierG (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is related to you incorrectly applying NOTTVGUIDE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. As with referencing, what is there? News announcments? Is that all? This is what lists about sport broadcasters are plaqued with. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it matter even if they were "only" announcements? As long as the information is verifiable/trustworthy that's really all that matters. Shadess (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it don't. Merely announcments does not make a subject notable on their own, neither does a mostly unsourced list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Keep the page around, tag it for improving refs and move along. Shadess (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they encyclopedic? This website is already plaqued with low quality lists such as this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELONG BrigadierG (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently against WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 13 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Denmark

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Denmark. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 11 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Estonia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in "on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..." etc. which is entirely different. Keep the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to delete this. Shadess (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> There is encyclopedic value to them

WP:BELONG

> every entry has a reference

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES

The bar here is showing that there is reliable, in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that?Shadess (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  > The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references
  
  No it isn't - WP:ONUS. Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST. I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG, so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV. The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Svartner (talk) 08:23, 20 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Kosovo

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Kosovo. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 11 April 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Northern Cyprus

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Cyprus. BrigadierG (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:47, 5 April 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Malayalam

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

This is interesting, but almost entirely unref'd and, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Kerala. PepperBeast (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the others just like this at Category:Lists of loanwords? You might as well bundle them all if its the same situation. Dream Focus 23:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed that it is very interesting, but Malayalam, like English, has hundreds of loan words. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with this. I certainly don't mind a few examples in language articles, but we are WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so compiling long lists of ehrmagerd, werds, is just not something we should be doing. PepperBeast (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 12:21, 8 April 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.

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of city name changes

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

WP:SALAT: this is an infinitely expandable list, there have been an uncountable number of city name changes in history and there will always be more happening in the future. Wikipedia is not a database for listing every city name change that has ever happened. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list should be trimmed to exclude those with minor orthographical changes (many of those in Indonesia for example) but this is a valid list as well as navigation page since many countries have their lists split into subpages. I don't think this is "infinitely expandable" at all, though you're welcome propose narrower inclusion criteria. There is an old discussion at Talk:List_of_city_name_changes#Scope_of_this_page that removed natural evolution of names and proposed having only deliberate changes to wholly new names. Even including other types listed this is by no means indiscriminate or inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If too in depth, erect rails. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92, and by not being completely convinced WP:SALAT applies as this can easily be broken out further. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Name changes are very notable events that can happen to a major city. Possibly a better inclusion criteria is required to improve the article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. The size of the list is not a reason to delete it. Any list that grow too large, just split off into different list. Dream Focus 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, if some sections get too long then they can be split off into sub-lists, like for many sections now. Dank Jae 08:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and it actually prevents editors from creating various content forks. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:55, 2 April 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.

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 delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2022 Commonwealth Games broadcasters

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the entries are either unsourced, primary or announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevance in an encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVDIRECTORY, doesn't meet WP:NLIST standard. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. desmay (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:29, 8 April 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.

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 delete‎. Anarchyte (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deal of the day services

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly unreferenced, and very broad criteria for inclusion - there are zillions sites on the net that have 'deals of the day'. We might as well list every second e-commerce website here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. ---- D'n'B-t -- 10:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems frozen in time from 2014, when the concept has changed from its origins and been blended into native advertising. Otherwise this exists solely as a WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NLIST. Even if the topic was widely discussed, I am counting a total of eight "active" pages that would come from the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Deal-of-the-day. Small enough to fit without clogging up the main article. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:41, 5 April 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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chat websites

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

Unreferenced since 2013. Time to go for violating WP:V/WP:LISTN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid navigational list. Category:Chat websites exist. Lists are always more useful than categories as they allow more information to be listed. And WP:LISTN clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. For years now these sorts of list have always been kept when sent to AFD. Dream Focus 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a poorly updated and random list. Some sites closed years ago. Plenty of other sites are not listed. Some are miscategorised (eg. Omegle as "adult"). The categories are random and not necessarily helpful. Finally, it violates WP:NLIST.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At minimum, it's a fine navigational aid/index of articles on chat websites. The features in the tables need sources, yes, but that seems like a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, since at worst those can just be removed should someone wish to challenge them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: list needs to be updated not deleted as this is useful for readers as they might search of chat websites here n there, like chat websites in 2012 or 2023 anything this would be helpful. HarryD (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly different discussion, but I don't see a difference between Online chat and Instant messaging, and there is already a similar list at Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients. There was a failed merge proposal in 2006 that argued there were differences between online chat and IM, but I can't find evidence that these differences really exist (e.g. IRC is now described as "instant messaging"). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voice chat and video chat might be part of online chat but not instant messaging, but the articles are very vague about this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 19 April 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.

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. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commodore 16 games

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

A list seemingly relying on copying from a Plus/4 World database. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDATABASE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C16 was big in Europe. This is not the same exact list as PD/Homebrew games are omitted. NPI WOL (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - feels similar to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atari 2600 prototype games, which ended with a consensus to send it to the draft space. This sort of list can be done right. But not like this. Needs sourcing, which can be hard to come by with a subject so old like this. It could be improved, but it also has no business existing in the main space as is. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was games not released, so totally unrelated to the situation here. Category:Video game lists by platform shows how many list like this exist. Any references can be found in the 76 game articles linked to. Dream Focus 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant. Whether or not the games were released was not a factor in that discussion. The point was, it was a valid list premise, but couldn't be published as its current form because of a complete lack of sourcing. I dont understand how you missed the point so badly... Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added some references simply by looking at the articles linked to and copying them over. As I clearly stated, the 76 games articles linked to have references confirming they exist. The many other lists like this don't have references for every single item. If you wish to delete any entry without a reference and/or their own article, then you still have 76 things listed, so its a valid list. Dream Focus 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say roughly 75% of the entries don't have an article to check for sources though, which still leaves you with an article that's either largely unsourced (or wildly incomplete if you remove all unsourced entries.) Still feels like a prime candidate for the draft space... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as stated above, whilst somewhat lazy of me, the response in the Atari 2600 discussion is identically relevant here: The list is a valid one with a clear category and not inherently without merit. But it's just unverifiable based on the lack of sourcing, the ambiguous scope, and non-notability of the items themselves. Put it this way - if it were a list, the immediate question would be "How do you know these are eligible?" In this case, there is one source, but that isn't going to be enough to WP:VERIFY the list. More work is needed. (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the reasons stated by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ.Rillington (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a relevant list of a relevant system, not some random prototype. NPI WOL (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have to WP:VERIFY that the list is correct. It may not be as arbitrary as the other example, but relying on a single source for this list is putting a very strong faith in that source being a correct and complete list. So really the article is no more reliable than just going to the external source. The best course is to either find more sources, or draftify it until someone does so. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(You're supposed to identify yourself as the article creator.) Even ignoring Wikipedia policies that make this not okay, the list, as is, is completely unnecessary. You just stole another websites list and put it in Wikipedia. People should be going to see their website to see their list. It's entirely redundant. A list of these games is possible...but absolutely not like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want this article kept but I agree with ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, and would also add that the article needs independent references as well before it can be returned to mainspace. Therefore I feel that draftifying the article is the right course of action at this point.

One option might be for the list to be a combination of notable games and games which can be verified with an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: @NPI WOL: Could you say where you source this list from? I think policy is to Wikipedia:Revision deletion copyright violations, but we may keep the entries that can be verified by the added sources. We could redirect a redirect to the existing category as long as the list is in draft if that helps with concerns? IgelRM (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Commodore_16_and_Plus/4_games there are 76 games that have articles, so valid navigational list. Lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information. Dream Focus 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the severe sourcing issues raised. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that above already. But I also went and found that MobyGames has all these games listed, with covers and screenshots proving they exist, and links to reviews done in old magazines about them that also prove they exist. The old magazines linked to are backed up on archive.org. Since no discussion on MobyGames being considered a reliable source has taken place in over a decade, I started a discussion for that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#MobyGames_owned_by_Atari_now. Dream Focus 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you not clicking on that link, please note that, as of my writing this, the suggestion of using MobyGames as a source was unanimously rejected by the Wikiproject members. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You and the four people who participated are against it. Dream Focus 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. You suggested it. 5 people opposed. 0 supported. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the addition of external references I am now changing my vote from draftify to keep. Rillington (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor sourcing 6 out of 900+ entries was enough for you to decide incubating in the draft space was not necessary and is now ready to be published? Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 75 articles linked to have references that can be copied over, and there are old magazines archived that review other things. No one is going to work on the article if its in draft space. AFD determine if an article should exist, not judging the current state it is in. Dream Focus 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20 references in the reflist now. Very easy to do. Dream Focus 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are technically plausible, but wildly underdeveloped/undersourced, are the very reason why we have the draft space. There is no rush here. As I noted above, the article creator largely just copy/pasted this list from another website. The info will still be available on the internet if it's sent to draft. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because it is clear to me that the references now found, and added, means that the contents of this list can be independently verified. This means that the article is now suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and now does not need to be relegated to draftspace. Rillington (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a physical museum that has old games in its collection. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/sec/1973/Commodore-C16-Plus-4/ That proves they exist and basic information about them. They have 181 games in their collection for this system. Other museums surely exist out there as well to reference the rest. The current list has 546 games total on it. Dream Focus 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I don't think there was much doubt that the games exist. A Wikipedia article relying on their database not be in interest of the museum? It appears to only list a game's cover, format, publisher, author and release year. IgelRM (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
76 of the games currently have links to their own articles. So that's enough for the list article to exist. As for the other games listed, they are there to make the list complete. If there is no doubt they exist, no reason to remove any of them from the list. Dream Focus 07:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly valid navigational list. The argument for deletion/draftification is that many of the entries are unsourced, but "was this a Commodore 16 game or not" is extremely easy to verify. Items that fail verification can simply be removed. There's no reason to delete or even to draftify this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - This list is complete, it has historical encyclopaedic value to anyone with an interest in retro videogames. Not only that, but games for a specific console are a widely discussed topic as a group. My question then to inclusion criteria is whether sources do likely exist. I did a spot check on some random ones on this list, and I'm satisfied that okayish sources do generally exist. For example, picking a random one from the list "Astro Plumber" I found https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/47327/Astro%20Plumber/ and nothing else after some real hard looking. I think this article is valid, but should adopt a WP:CSC of requiring citation. I'm happy to move the current page content onto the talk page after this AfD closes. BrigadierG (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs additional citations for verification, but meets WP:NLIST as video games for a console are often discussed together. Can also serve as a navigational list. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @Liz: Recent comments don't deal with the nomination concern of database copyright, we all know it meets WP:NLIST. Could you recommend a different venue that deals with this so I may withdraw this AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgelRM (talk • contribs)
WP:CCI deals with WP:COPYVIO stuff, if that's what you're asking. Diannaa would probably be a good go-to Admin on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains no creative content, so it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: There is database right but I suppose this is more of a moral case here? Thanks IgelRM (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't re-create a database; we only offer a list of products. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title, Genre, Release date, and Language are not a copyright issue. That information is on the game box. Same with Compilation, this just a list of products and what they contained. Where did the person who made the original database get the information from? Did they find a copy of every single game and copy the information from the boxes they came in? Dream Focus 11:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is look at it. Only a single "source" was present at the time he created and published the article. It contains the same columns in the same order, and it was largely created on one massive edit. It doesn't take a genius to see he clearly plagiarized/ripped off that database website. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 13 April 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.

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 delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony

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

This is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation of indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information that won't fit in their main article, so a spinout article is the right place to put it. This is how its done. Category:Career achievements of basketball players and Category:Career achievements of sportspeople have many examples of this. Dream Focus 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Let'srun, you should have cited the recent precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul - a discussion you yourself created. That would make your argument stronger. Anyway, I think Carmelo's major accomplishments belong in the main Carmelo Anthony article. We're not losing anything by deleting ridiculously cherry-picked stats like "One of three players in NBA history to record 62+ points with 10 free throw attempts or less in a game." Much of this content is also out of date, particularly the Denver Nuggets franchise rankings. Zagalejo (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See User:Let'srun's unsuccessful attempt to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. User:Let'srun appears to be on a mission to delete every career achievement article in Category:Career achievements of basketball players and Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. My question is where is the cut off and why...? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more sympathetic to these articles if they were maintainable over time, but experience shows that they're not. You'd need a small army of NBA editors to deal with all the little details that need updating. Rankings and records easily go out of date; for example, Nikola Jokic has surpassed many of Carmelo's Nuggets accomplishments, but that's not reflected in this article. There are some things that Wikipedia will never be able to do as well as sites like basketball-reference.com.
These articles might work if they were limited to awards and truly significant records, but in most cases, we should be able to make room for such facts in the main article. (Of course, the main Carmelo Anthony page is super-bloated itself; the level of detail per season is higher than what you'd find at Michael Jordan. That's because people wrote Carmelo's career section while his career was ongoing, rather than taking a retrospective approach.) Zagalejo (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that there are some things basketball-reference (and all others) will never be able to do as well as Wikipedia on sports lists. When done right, career achievements is a collection of pertinent info from a variety of RS sources that no single non-Wiki source has access to. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Carmelo's achievements are not significant enough, and he is constantly falling down the franchise record rankings. However, the rest of the NBA players on Category:Career achievements of basketball players are a keep vote from me except Dwight Howard and Dennis Rodman. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very conflicted on this. List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony#Career-highs is interesting, does not fit on the main page, and never requires updating. I only said Delete because Dwyane Wade's page was deleted which I do not necessarily agree with but for the purpose of fairness I say this should as well. If criteria was established as to what should go on these pages and what should not then I think it could work for the Top 75 all-time. IMO if player is arguably Top 10 (or Top 75?) all-time he qualifies for a page. Players outside Top 75 do not deserve their own. Here is the NBA’s 75th anniversary list, Dwight is not on it but Carmelo, Chris Paul, and Dwyane are on it. If any need updating, I can assists with that.WP:NOEFFORT is not a good enough reason to remove all of this time-consuming volunteer work. Before AfDing for this reason, please put an update section box at the top of these articles, wait a couple of years, see if anyone helps, and discuss on the Talk page. Thoughts? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't mind the career highs table (assuming the dead link can be replaced). But I'd still rather not encourage these articles. As a data point, look at List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook. That has been tagged for a while, and the career stats table at the top is obviously out of date, but no one has responded. I don't think most volunteers have the patience to work on these articles. It's tedious and unfulfilling work. I think we just need to be realistic. It would be better for people to focus on the main player articles, rather than ultra-detailed spinouts. You probably could fit the career high table in the main Carmelo Anthony article if we tighten up the prose there. Zagalejo (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, but it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead. I think we should aim to keep these articles for those in the Top 10 all-time discussion which can vary quite a bit from source to source. Carmelo, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Dennis Rodman are not in there as far as I can see. Here is ESPN's Top 10 rankings and The Athletic's. Since the Top 10 talk is such a focus of emphasis for the media, I think ultra-detailed articles are relevant to the large audience trying to understand who is right in their "hot takes". FYI List of career achievements by Michael Jordan has received 6,100 views in the last 30 days, so people are certainly looking. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead: Consensus can change, not that there's evidence that there was a formal consensus that these pages were ever needed. As early as 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade was a "delete". As the nom said, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP's purpose is not to recreate basketball-reference.com's database or compile tidbits sourced to AI site statsmuse.com. There's a reason articles have an "External links" section.—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination). WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section", whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements. I hope these AfD's do not spill over into WP:SPINOUT articles for Top 10 players. They are justified and appropriate IMO. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I found The Athletic article saying "only player in NBA history to score 50 points without a single point in the paint". This info is not WP:OR and these records are being talked about. I'll leave it at that. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion And this discussion is about our opinions. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements: Per WP:ONUS, feel free to source them and gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of trying to go by similar pages that were kept or deleted, it would be useful to go back to the relevant P&G.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the nom cited WP:NOTSTATS, and my !vote referenced WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:UNDUE. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, I agree with what has been said before. Specific elements commented on by reliable sources may be eligible for a merge, but I think everything of that sort that is relevant is already in the main article. BrigadierG (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I thought most of these pages have already been deleted until I checked Category:Career achievements of basketball players. Now I see that most of those pages should be nominated for deletion since they have not enough references or do not have any at all. – sbaio 05:34, 6 April 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.

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 delete‎. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and South America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 March 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) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. The difference between this and others you mentioned (or some) is that they are in a better quality and this isn't. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo gallery software

AfDs for this article:

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

Perhaps merge and redirect to Comparison of image viewers. Difference between image viewer software and photo galleries not sufficient. The article also doesn't have large list of items or references. Not much improvement from last AfD, merging and redirecting seems to be the best solution IMO. Greatder (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Greatder (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOWTO, WP:LIST, and WP:SIGCOV. Comparison lists often bump into our rule against "how to" articles. Also, two references do not reach the level of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undereferenced, not updated. Marketing bait too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 9 April 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital timeline

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

This will eventually be an unwieldy list of all digital devices (cameras, phones, scales, light bulbs...) Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The last invention listed at the end is from 2005. Also what is a analog or digital light bulb? Dream Focus 20:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lightbulb whose brightness varies with current is clearly analogue. Digital? Perhaps something like this [16] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a list of thousands of digital devices. Do you think that they stopped making digital devices in 2005? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was made in January 2009, with so few edits they all fit on one history tab listing. I don't think thousands of devices will be added, nor would that make any sense at all. It list the first of each thing, not every single device there ever was. Dream Focus 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a confused mess of OR without anything remotely resembling a clear topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a list article, and WP:LISTN states: 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. I can find no such sources that describe a timeline, as envisaged here, about everything analogue to digital. I can find evidence in specific domains, such as the evolution of music recording, but even there, the information is not generally presented as a standalone timeline without any context. I think this list is misconceived. If we consider the reader, the question is what information might they want or need to know, and how would we best provide that information? An incomplete context free list is not going to help an information need. Instead an article on this wide ranging subject should be written in prose, and may then contain relevant timelines. For instance, would Comparison of analog and digital recording benefit from a timeline? Such a timeline is typically presented as a diagram in sources, rather than as a list. Finally I am unconvinced by the argument above that the page will not become unwieldy simply because no one has edited it. Sure, the lack of interest in touching this page might mean it remains short, but it also means it is very incomplete, and what it contains is editor selected, and thus WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are a lot of timeline articles just like this one. Category:Timelines by topic Dream Focus 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on TNT grounds. I do think a good timeline article could possibly be written, but this isn't it, and I'm not sure if anything could be salvaged. Currently it's just a list of digital devices. For it to be a timeline of the transition from analogue to digital, there must have been an established analogue thing before the invention of a digital equivalent. This makes perfect sense in some fields (music recordings) but it's absolute nonsense in numerical calculation because Babbage's difference engine didn't replace an analogue equivalent. Yes, there were and are analogue computing devices, but they never did the same job, they never occupied the same ecological niche, and in any case, the article doesn't mention them. Nor does it make any sense to mention the Jacquard loom as there was never an analogue loom because weaving is fundamentally a there-or-not-there process. Book-keeping was always a digital process too; accounts were never analogue. We must be careful not to confuse analogue-to-digital with manual-to-automated. The same applies to most of the stuff about player-pianos. I am prepared to strike my delete if someone is able to do a massive clean-up and reorganisation, but the list in its current form is an ill-defined mess that I feel needs a totally fresh start. Elemimele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is best not to delete it but significantly modify before moving to the article space again. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tech-history fancruft. This is like a wiki version of those old Ray Kurzweil plots of random things thrown together onto a timeline because they were all "evolutionary innovations" somehow. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Messy and unclear. I read it and I am not sure what this even supposed to be - the content seems to contradict the lead, or perhaps requires expert knowledge. Fails NLIST, INDISCRIMNATE, etc.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 9 April 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.

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 Dance Dance Revolution. as an ATD. If you can find another place online that would house the content of this article, the content is still there in the page history. But the consensus is that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Dance Dance Revolution

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

Complete list of unsourced trivia; no notability to warrant keeping. Loyalmoonie (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a "Music of DDR" article, it's more of a "List of DDR songs". However, it violates WP:NOTDATABASE without context for why it exists. It could be transwiki'd if it hasn't been already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Transwiki'd where? Fandom? Mach61 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full list of DDR songs, though not exactly in the format given here, exists in more or less complete form at DDRFreak and remywiki. There is a DanceDanceRevolution fandom wiki, but it's not particularly up to date or complete. Recon rabbit 19:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible bundle with Music of Dance Dance Revolution Extreme, Music of Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova, Music of Dance Dance Revolution X, and Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2013-present)? Jumpytoo Talk 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable to bundle them all in this same nomination should the article be deleted. They all fall under Zxcvbnm's rationale that they all violate WP:NOTDATABASE, and either do not have enough sources and/or have no sources at all to justify their notability.
Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A significant portion of this content (including artists) should be merged with existing pages. If this article does get deleted, then a "Music" section should be created in the Dance Dance Revolution article, and it should incorporate some of this content. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral - I feel Wikipedia should have some complete/official record/list of DDR songs, because it just seems right, and in 2024, it won't seem right if there isn't one. Majority of the content on this article, especially the initial contributions are from me. However at the time, the article was titled "List of Dance Dance Revolution songs", which I felt made more sense, as it was a list article, which are very common on Wikipedia. One issue was that sources weren't being added to the article, but I guess maybe some loophole on original research was being allowed? I don't know what rules or procedures were going on, which allowed not only me, but other DDR fanatics/hobbyists to add thousands of footnotes/songs, but I guess a simple Google search, or knowing how big the DDR arcade fandom is (and also home console versions), everyone knows that Butterfly, B4U, and Max 300 are DDR songs even though sources weren't technically added by approved sources, so it's confusing. It wasn't until a name change of the article to "Music of Dance Dance Revolution" which happened a few years ago, to where I feel the article got out of hand, and I feel the article became a bit confusing, and it was no longer a list/record article (which are common) and it was more of, well, something else, I can't really find the words to explain, but I hope I'm being understood. I suggested that the article be deleted, but it was more wordplay, and pulling on heartstrings, and I guess I was being sarcastic/cynical, because I actually don't want this article to be deleted. However, if rules are rules, technically according to wiki rules, this article doesn't have a single source, but it doesn't necessarily mean the content is incorrect (actually it isn't, everything added to this article is correct), it's just for some reason Konami doesn't have any official websites listing the songs, except for fan sites like DDRfreak, and other video game blogs. So it's tough. I may add more to say later, but this is all I have to say for now. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been on Wikipedia (at least to my knowledge since 2009) a very long time, and I felt originally torn because it was unsourced, but again I feel although deleting seems to be the right approach, I personally after thinking about it, disagree, and I want the article to stay, with possibly more DDR fans would understand where I'm coming from with this. Please. Oh dear. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That falls under WP:PLEASEDONT (or maybe WP:ARTICLEAGE). The fact is that regardless of how useful it is to fans of the series, it's explicitly something Wikipedia bans, namely directories or listings of indiscriminate info. It is preserved on FANDOM, so the info is not being permanently lost. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the above comments of, "I want the article to stay" and "Article has been on Wikipedia (at least to my knowledge since 2009) a very long time", seem to suggest ownership issues. Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the same subject, however, this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I am surprised that in all that time, no effort was made to properly source this, or the other articles Jumpytoo mentioned that should be bundled with this AfD. They should have been deleted/merged a long time ago rather than be allowed to stand with these issues for long periods of time.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Again I thought about it. I know rules are rules, and at the end of the day, my say is that it should be kept, but I agree and will understand whatever the final outcome is. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution#Music - I'll explain more in detail later, but I believe that at least some of the DDR soundtrack (mainly Extreme and SuperNova 2) is notable. Several other songs are also notable, too. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stance of ~~Delete~~, per my reasons for nomination and latter comments, still stand. If this article (and several other articles cited by Jumpytoo that ought to be bundled with this AfD) could stand for many years and still keep having all these issues that no editor has ever resolved properly, then I honestly am surprised this article hadn't met the criteria for speedy deletion...

Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) (striking this duplicate vote, your nomination statement is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given some of the "non-vote" comments made in this discussion, I see opinions that this page content should be merged elsewhere or, at a minimum, that this article page title should become a redirect to a target article. This isn't a "supervote", I just want to take into consideration all editors' voices. I'm relisting this discussion to hear feedback and suggestions from participants. Of course, as a relisted discussion, it can be closed at any time by another closer who sees a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being that this Afd still isn't concluded, I still feel torn, as funnily enough, I was the one who suggested the Afd in the first place, but then I began to regret that, and I feel the article should stay. Although, I'll respect the final decision, either or. However, I feel I'll add that another conclusion I'll be happy with if the article was redirected to "List of Dance Dance Revolution Franchise songs" or "List of Dance Dance Revolution Series songs" as the article is supposed to be a gateway/archive, as there have been hundreds of DDR editions/releases, so if the article is allowed to stay in some form, I'd be happy with that. As far as sources being added, I was hoping a consensus on that could also be made, although video game fan sites don't seem to be allowed sources, but I don't know. But again, I'll respect whatever the final outcome of the consensus is. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the original nomination and then Zxcvbnm summed it well. An unsourced database of songs that appear in the series of games is more suitable for its own Wikia then here. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY and WP:GNG is not satisfied as I haven't been able to find anything beyond more listings in other sites. Phrasia's keep argument has been countered already and redirecting it to the main article LABcrabs accomplishes nothing because this is a broader concept that currently isn't in that article. Merging this, of course, makes even less sense given it's 1) unsourced/poorly sourced and 2) WP:SIZE issues. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution. I did a source check and did find WP:SIGCOV discussing the music generally:

Demers, Joanna (October 2006). "Dancing machines: 'Dance Dance Revolution', cybernetic dance, and musical taste". Popular Music. 25 (3): 401–414. doi:10.1017/S0261143006001012. ISSN 1474-0095.
Morris, Gay; Giersdorf, Jens Richard (2016-02-05). Choreographies of 21st Century Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-029899-9.

However, I also agree with Zxcvbnm in that this is more of a list of DDR songs article and that violates WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. And I don't think a re-write without the list would be long enough such that it would need to be WP:SPLIT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If I may interject, "Wikipedia is not a database or a log", that usually applies to software, hardware, patch notes, log files etc., technology related topics etc. This, (and I think is where the misconception is) is a discography/music/soundtrack, pop culture list/archive/records article etc. (originally titled "List of DDR songs", which was made as there are hundreds of DDR arcade/amusement/event and home fusion releases etc., and it was much more simpler that way to create a paramount article of all the songs etc.), and I feel the rules are slightly different. The problem is, the article was renamed to "Music of DDR" (which I had nothing to do with), so maybe there is some confusion, as this is a list article, (or was intended to be), and again I'm sorry, I feel I understand sources should be added (whether Youtube videos, Dancemania/Universal EMI album releases, strategy guides, game manuals etc.) which say what the songs are, as opposed to Konami which for some reason no longer keeps tabs of the music/songs in the franchise on their website anymore. So again I feel the article should be redirected to "List of Dance Dance Revolution songs", being tagged as a music/pop culture/discography/soundtrack "list article", which are allowed. I'll also add I can understand if people disagree with me, but another suggestion, is making list simpler to understand, highlighting and noting songs which are on what editions by section/page breaks, and whether they are still in the franchise or not. etc. So I just wanted to defend the fact on whether the article is allowed on wiki (which I feel it would be under a "list" article, and whether size/aesthetics would be a concern (which I gave suggestions). So just wanted to add some more commentary. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 01:10, 9 April 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.

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 delete‎. Unanimous. JBW (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Lucknow

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion as part of a bundle nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Bangalore, which closed as keep on 24 February 2018. I quote a relevant interaction between @RoySmith and Narky Blert:

Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.

I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The source in question (now a dead URL) was removed by GermanJoe in October 2018 with the edit summary: rmv - not a reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "List of songs about [X city]" articles should be evaluated on their own merits, and some such articles definitely have a claim to notability, for cities that have been the subject of several notable songs or songs by notable artists, and whose songs have been discussed as a set in independent, reliable sources. Like the nominator, I find that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Any notable songs can be discussed in a "In popular culture" section or similar at Lucknow. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting. I can't tell if IgnatiusofLondon is offering an opinion here (please BOLD) or just catching us up on the history here but since the article was part of a previous bundled nomination, it's not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is a comment, one is a !vote :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IgnatiusofLondon. I misread your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IgnatiusofLondon Mach61 19:03, 7 April 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.

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 delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. After 3 relistings, I doubt that there is any more participation that can be expected and this consensus seems clear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in figure skating by nation

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

I don't see how this article doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Ignoring the blatant MOS:ACCESS issues with the tables (which I could address), these tables constitute original research and an assemblage of indiscriminate statistics. The very first table, for example, simply shows that Russia has won a gold medal in each of the listed events, but not how many, and then an unsourced total on the right column. Additionally, synchronized skating is (unfortunately) a separate entity from other figure skating disciplines. This is another example of someone treating Wikipedia like a figure skating fan wiki. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH per nom. In cases like this where there are many possible methods by which to synthesize the raw results from many competitions into an overall ranking, it is not upon Wikipedia to select one of them to crown the top nations. A mainspace article that promotes the personal opinion of one or two editors of how this should be done (i.e. what should count as a "major achievement") is a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Major achievements in sports by nation exist for other sports. Listing how many medals each nation one, is acceptable. References can easily be found on pages linked to or from official sites for these various games. Category:Lists of figure skating medalists also exist. This is useful for having all the games they can win medals together easily found in a nice layout, just like all the other articles of this type. Dream Focus 21:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, that would be a reason to consider deleting them all rather than keeping this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think these tables constitute a “nice layout”? I think they’re appalling. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a cell phone or are you zoomed in too much on the article? How is it different than any other table on Wikipedia? Dream Focus 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of MOS violations. I am willing to correct the tables, but I don't want to do any more work on them until this AFD has been decided. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:SYNTH. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this synth? Listing what medals each country won, is not synth, it just an easily proven fact. Dream Focus 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained above. Deciding on a particular method for combining that information about individual medals into an overall ranking - e.g. have Wikipedia crown Russia as the all-time top nation in "All competitive disciplines", beating Canada and the United States - is WP:SYNTH and also a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NEXIST where a quick search reveals that reliable independent sourcing exists for all of this and, as such, is not a SYNTH violation. If you claim this should be deleted, you are promoting a WP:Trainwreck. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some sources that prove that this article is notable and not just a SYNTH- better than claiming sources exist, please demonstrate some decent and appropriate sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article links to the official websites showing the information already! Dream Focus 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This claim appears to be false. Or which web pages exactly of those currently linked under Major_achievements_in_figure_skating_by_nation#References contain these country rankings as shown in the article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple math is not Synth. Not does it say its ranking them in an official capacity. If that's your only complaint, then just remove the No. column. Dream Focus 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SYNTH concerns raised above weren't primarily about the counting across those many different websites, but there are likely to be non-trivial decisions involved there too.

In any case I'm glad that we appear to agree that the rankings are not official, i.e. that this article is making proclamations in Wikipedia voice of who the all-time top country in each discipline and even overall is. That is highly problematic, also given how contested such nation rankings in sports can be at times. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear nom.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOTSTATS. Such content belongs on a fan wiki, not here. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Lists==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Game_of_the_Century_(college_football)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Brazil}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada}}