Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

WP:DSLIST

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

List of ribus

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

(no vote) list based on deleted nonnotabe term, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu --Altenmann >talk 08:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move ~~to List of ribus in Indonesia~~, to reflect its content. I didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu but am not convinced that Ribu as a term is not notable - see 2009 coverage of the Indonesian list and Austrian coverage of the list as examples. PamD 10:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD: Actually, both titles are misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials"; see better move suggestion below. --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New, sourced, section on ribus now created. PamD 12:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not change the fact that "ribu" remains personal endeavor of Quinn that belongs only to his webpage and should not be advertised in Wikipedia. We already established lack of notability of the term. Imagine my dad fisherman starts classifying fish by their color and publishes the catalog "Chromatography of fish". Heck, we already have real articles about real fringe scientists, and theirs opinions are not propagated in other wikipedia aricles. --Altenmann >talk 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it's been covered more widely and there's now his book, and a forthcoming magazine article. PamD 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why ribus in Indonesia not mountains in Indonesia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the term wasn't notable at AfD then this isn't either.Golikom (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" as that appears to be the notable topic here... I can certainly find enough coverage of Indonesian mountains for this to be a stand-alone list but I can't find enough coverage of Indonesian "ribus" to get anywhere close. This would also match the other entries at Category:Lists of mountains of Asia, as it stands now this is a weird outlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" per Horse Eye's Back. Also because the title is misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials" --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a title which reflects "prominence", such as List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There will be many very high significant peaks in Indonesia which are not included in this list because you don't need to drop 1,000m between them and the next peak. See the titles in Category:Lists of mountains by prominence: many includes "ultras" in their title, and a "ribu" is the same kind of categorisation, just using 1,000m rather than the "ultra" cutoff of 1,500m. To call this List of mountains of Indonesia would be misleading. Either List of rebus of Indonesia or List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There seems to be no one list of Indonesian mountains. I have tweaked the lead of this list to clarify its scope, downplaying the little-known (as yet?) term rebus and clarifying prominence. PamD 18:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can be included, we're discussing the core topic... Not what is literally on the page this second (that is nearly completely irrelevant in an AfD discussion) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your "they" is. To include all the mountains of Indonesia would be a very different list. This is a list of mountains in Indonesia with prominence >1000m, whether called "ribus" or not, with a selection of other noteworthy peaks (the "spezials"). PamD 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the content will be different, but thats where the notable topic is... It does currently appear to contain the large majority of notable mountains in Indonesia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a list of mountains of Indonesia with 1000m prominence (plus a few), whether or not they are referred to as ribus. That is very different from a list of all Indonesian mountains above a certain height: this list is complete, but would be very incomplete if it was a "list of mountains of Indonesia". Wikipedia already has many ists of prominent mountains by place, and this is one of them, currently misnamed. PamD 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this list is complete? It is almost entirely unsourced Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm WP:AGFing. There is a complete list of the 1000m prominence Indonesian mountains, plus the "specials", at https://www.gunungbagging.com/ribu-categories/all-the-ribus/ . PamD 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not apply to content, WP:V does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a list based on a quasi-notable neologism. I don't care if the content is saved as there is a list of mountains with heights, but we shouldn't have this specific list. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming

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

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wyoming. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a list of George Floyd protests for every state in the USA: Category:George Floyd protests in the United States by state or territory. I agree a lot of these protests aren't notable enough for mention (WP:NOTNEWS), but the most notable ones from all states could be bundled into one, as per the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per GNG. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Another Believer. All fifty states' George Floyd protests articles are worthy of expansion; if you don't agree, just look at this map. Songwaters (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Well cited, and could easily be expanded based on the abundant published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all "...in state" articles, into the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. That would make the article WAY too long. Songwaters (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator - maybe this and the handful of other place-specific articles that are essentially a list of "X people marched in Y city on June Z" could be merged into the "...in the United States" article (like Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, etc.), but not ones with more substantive and unique content (like for Chicago). I just think that we don't need multiple articles that are list of local news events that have no hope of growing into anything in the future, when they could easily be summarized into a main article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Also outside the scope of this discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. It's well done, and the consequences should never be forgotten. The long-term impact of this incident is similar to the lynching of Emmett Till. Different circumstances, different cause of death. But the overall impact is there. — Maile (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up to "about 500 people" were in the most popular protest. Hundreds of people walking down a street with nothing else happening isn't enough for its own article. Anything notable should be listed in George Floyd protests. Dream Focus 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts

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

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. This information could be moved elsewhere, but I am unclear where, but until that is done it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the need for both of these dab/set pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gulfs

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

Is this article defining a gulf (as distinguished from a sea) by actual features or by its standard geographical name in the English-speaking world?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I have made no attempt to determine if this meets WP:NLIST, deletion is not cleanup. It could be properly sourced and possibly merged into Gulf, which is a stub. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gulf is absurdly short, the list should be there rather than a separate page. Whether only those titled gulf are listed or there's some flexibility of inclusion of bays or whatnot, I see no basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit history and deletion log reveal that this used to be our gulf (geography) article, although there was some history swapping going on in 2010 that confuses matters. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given to delete. This is clearly a valid navigational and information list article. Dream Focus 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:NLIST. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason given to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Tintin locations

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

Poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Fraternities and sororities, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternities and sororities?? Why? -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have The Adventures of Tintin#Settings and a couple of articles on fictional locations in the series such as Syldavia and Borduria. Purely cataloguing which locations appear in which stories as is done here doesn't seem helpful, however. It might be possible to write a stand-alone article about how locations are used in the series based on sources analysing that subject, but the bulk of this article is basically just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. Goustien (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is simply a mass of WP:RAWDATA without any reference to how these places tie into the Tintin series, and the way they are depicted. TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: covered as a set in https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/geographie-territoires/les-geographies-de-tintin/; with certain regions also addressed as a set in various sources, including https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/l-arabie-de-tintin,1628 https://www.topito.com/top-pays-imaginaires-tintin All the countries are listed in Géopolitique. Atlas des 160 lieux stratégiques du monde. (2018). Editions Ellipses There are plenty of other sources on the topic in Tintin dictionaries. So meets WP:NLIST, and is a good SPLIT. -Mushy Yank. 19:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good source, but someone needs to use it to move this article beyond a pure plot summary. Until then this can be redirected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Belgium. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs to be better sourced, but does appear to have been covered as a set by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OR delete votes are incorrect - while there's a chance a list item or two might be OR, since I haven't reviewed the sources completely, this list has clearly been the topic of secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a great deal of interest in Herge's choice of settings and the way he depicts them, and especially how that changed over time, which material could be used to expand the paragraph in the main article. But this listing is largely trivia, and it doesn't do anything towards that understanding. To be blunt, it's the sort of east stamp-collecting list article that WP authors write instead of grappling with the real work of writing a coherent analysis. Looking at the British sublist, for instance, most of it has to do with The Black Island, which, duh, is set there, and the rest are incidental and lack context. There are many entries which are only passing mentions, again without any context. Yeah, sure, you can make such an article, but really, the actually useful list information already appears in a list of the works themselves, because it's the larger setting of each— Russia, America, Peru, Arabia, and so forth— that are worth "listing". Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TH1980. This is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and redundant with The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. It's not tenable to create separate lists of every scene from a piece of fuction. A redirect or selective merge may be an acceptable compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is mostly unsourced and potentially contained OR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prhartcom: Goustien (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin

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

So, there's some interesting stuff here in the form of well written and referenced text on "The maritime world in The Adventures of Tintin", but this is wrapped in fancrufty and poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and while the list appears to have plenty of footnotes, many are just unreferenced notes or commentary). As a list, I think his has no reason to exist, but the content could probably be merged somewhere, or maybe split (or perhaps we could just delete the list part of this article and rename it?). It's a weird case, I've very rarely seen some good content bundled with bad one in such a way... If this is somehow kept, obviously, this is not a list of boats, but ships (or ships and boats?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Lists, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For what it's worth, the corresponding article in French is a GA. The topic is covered in a dedicated book! Horeau, Y. (1999). Tintin, Haddock et les bateaux. (Among other existing sources) Meets WP:NL. Topic addressed as a set.The rest of the issues are normal issues that can be handled through normal editing. Most of the ships in Tintin are notable, btw. Even see GNews -Mushy Yank. 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank. BilletsMauves^€500 10:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. I'm only seeing trivial mentions and plot details. The relevant plot stuff is already mentioned at the main series article, which would be an acceptable redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives

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

The article only lists the cities and atoll capitals, which List of islands of the Maldives already do. This article could be redirected to that article since it fits WP:ATD-R. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to merge the articles? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a list that's clearly a part of an established set of articles. Just because it's duplicative doesn't mean we can't have it - someone looking for this list may not know to go to the List of islands of the Maldives. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives, which already has prose about cities and atolls and tables with all of the atoll capitals and cities. I see no need for this duplicative page (there is nothing to even merge it seems), and a redirect and updated links will help users find this. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating records and statistics

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

I'm going to be honest: I don't know what the hell this is. For an article that has "records and statistics" in its name, it features neither records nor statistics. It just seems to be a random assemblage of various figure skating Wikipedia articles cobbled together in a Frankenstein-like manner. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Lists. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic topic that meets WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, even if renamed to match what the article actually is about. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic timeline

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

An attempt was made to bundle this into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline, but the bundling was not done properly. I don't think enough analysis was put into determining if the topic meets WP:GNG — the main reason Detailed logarithmic timeline was deleted was WP:IINFO. Google Scholar returns lots of results about time perception, such as Ren et al. (2020); as well as a few odd items like Deane and Stokes (2002) on the physics of breaking waves; but nothing about a logarithmic timeline for history or the far future. The lone source is to one about an individual timeline that is linear; it mentions and links to a timeline on the history of life in passing, but not that it is logarithmic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the similar discussion linked in the nomination statement. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is where not just mechanically looking for the article title and having an idea of what to look for pays off. The concept of a logarithmic timescale was documented by, amongst others, Nigel Calder in 1983: A logarithmic time line
[…] is no more mysterious than the maneuver of an aircraft as it nears touchdown and flares out to avoid hitting the ground too hard. The rate of "descent" through time diminishes as one approaches the present, according to a strict but simple rule that a stipulated proportional change in ancient dates always corresponds to the same distance along the timescale.
— Nigel Calder, ISBN 9780701139254 p. 75
Alas, Börje Ekstig' 2011 book ISBN 9781456779542 is self-published through AuthorHouse, because on pages 12–13 it not only explains what a logarithmic timescale is, it gives much the same reverse logarithmic calendar as in the reverse timeline section of this article, their both going back to the origin of life at $10^9$ Ma BP, for example.
But Joel Levy's Big Book of Science (ISBN 9780785835998, Quarto) is not self-published and explains on page 94 that when it comes to the difficulties of comprehensibly visualizing the history of the Earth, "[o]ne way around this is to use a logarithmic timescale".
Where rôte mechanistic keyword searching fails to pay off is that it doesn't find David Christian's Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History, a book that nowhere says the word "logarithm" but that is logarithmic (albeit not base 10) in overall structure, the scale of the book increasing as it works chapter by chapter towards the present, going from Ga at the start through Ma by chapter 5 to decades by chapter 11, and at least useful for being able to source explanatory notes on events in the table, satisfying any "But what do historians include?" questions. For another actually explicit logarithmic timeline of the history of the Earth, albeit a less detailed one (but in colour ☺), see Foley (ORCID 0000-0001-7510-0223) et al., chapter 16 of ISBN 9783030822026 (also published as doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002), page 206. There's a logarithmic timeline of the past 10Ma on page 217 of ISBN 9780241280904 by Simon Lewis, for yet another "logarithmic timescale, where each jump is an order of magnitude" going down from 1Ma to 1Da from left to right.
This most definitely is not some novelty that was invented by Wikipedia. And to those, not historians/geologists/whatever, who opine that it is not useful, I give the words of the late geomorphology professor Antony R. Orme about xyr reverse logarithmic timeline of the Earth going from 1Ma up to 4.5Ga in doi:10.1093/oso/9780195313413.003.0008: "The logarithmic timescale condenses the distant past, thereby enhancing Mesozoic and Cenozoic events relevant to the present landscape."
Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [1]. The page can be improved of course. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat order of battle

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wrong venue. As things currently stand, this page is necessary as the order of battle is split into two pages, one for each adversary, per WP:ORBAT. I wouldn't oppose merging the two order of battle pages together at this title, or merging both into the article about the battle as proposed, but we need a WP:MERGE discussion, not a deletion discussion. I will say ~~this~~ the current arrangement is the typical setup for most ACW battles, including most minor ones. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for 4 separate pages about 1 minor battle. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nom proposed a merge, not deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – the nom made a mistake about the venue (that's fine), but this can be closed and renominated as a merge proposal per Mdewman. Cremastra (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Shakespeare's plays

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

I don't see how this is a noteworthy topic. In the cases where there is no historical basis for a locale, Shakespeare simply set his plays (I believe) in whatever place his source located them; where they are located is a trivial matter. TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Wikishovel (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning delete~~ As it stands, this comes off as WP:OR in that the idea for instance about the locations of the tragedies seems to be that of the author. OTOH I would not be surprised at scholarly analysis of this subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of Shakespearean settings per discussion below. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep Seems to me to be something that could be reliably sourced, and upon which there is surely quite a lot of commentary. Locations are often significant. I have a lot of issues with the page as it currently is, which I'll happily have a go at listing if this discussion looks like closing as a keep. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarly sources include [2][3][4][5]. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find these 'scholarly' sources convincing. Place does not matter in the plays; they are simply set where Shakespear's source located them. Geography in Shakespear is shonky in the extreme, as in the Aleppo-bound Master of the Tyger. Aleppo is not a coastal city. Ther locations are simply far- away place of which we know nothing. Incidentally I worked for a long time in the theatre industry and was closely associated with the design of a number of Shakespeare plays, some for the RSC. I do not recall any of the designers with whom I worked being remotely interested in researching the locations in which the plays are set. TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find it encyclopaedic. Whole article is based on a trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very new and extremely undercooked, but the subject is certainly notable (pace Azuredivay, notability depends on what scholars and others have written, not on the text of the Wikipedia article) with plenty of scholarly sources available. Rewriting is certainly needed, with more and better sources, but that's an editing matter, not for AfD. Bohemia is in the Czech Republic not Austria (wherever it may have been politically in the 17th century); Florence isn't in France; Pericles is wrongly linked; and the equation of Cymbeline/Cunobeline's Ancient Britain with "England" is pretty dubious to say the least (England didn't come into being until at least 500 years later). The map is pretty but the data on it are unsourced and seemingly as wobbly as the tables of data. So as I said, the sources definitely need improvement. The Settings of Shakespeare's Plays by Josip Torbarina would be a place to start (at least it distinguishes England and Britain). I think it would be best to focus on towns or cities (a column in the tables) with "Country" more of a gloss, as countries have changed many times. Even the parts of London would be well worth distinguishing: Torbarina lists the Tower [of London], Bridewell Palace, Eastcheap, Southwark, Blackfriars, Smithfield, Cannon Street, Blackheath, Dartford "etc.". He has similar lists of towns in the English counties, and quite a few cities in France too. The article's problem is its lack of detail and lack of attention to the published scholarly sources, which are a great deal more informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This article has a few glaring errors, as pointed out by Chiswick Chap. On the other hand, I think it would benefit greatly from the addition of content using the scholarly sources identified by Reywas92. Once it's cleaned up and polished, it will be a great addition to Wikipedia.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you all for your feedback, I have updated it since, with more sources, a more detailed and expanded table, an analysis section and fixed various issues. Any more feedback is welcomed, I believe that the content of this article is very interesting and has a place on Wikipedia, the map has also been updated for readability and sourcing.--Jadek8 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Shakespearean settings. We have this topic covered on a location-by-location basis, albeit incompletely, already; this new article Locations of Shakespeare's plays covers the topic on a play-by-play basis. It would be best to include all of this information in the same article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, and I'd suggest just redirecting the settings list to this locations list. That page is rather poor, being mainly bullet-pointed names with no context of which plays were at which place. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge (unless this closes "delete" in which case I'd support a redirect). In my view the list article serves a different purpose from this one - and it's formatted as a list which this isn't, and it would lose that if the material from this page were merged into it. AndyJones (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commen by nominator The merge suggestion seems sensible to me. Incidentally I am baffled by an academic article on 'The sense of place in Shakespeare's plays', since I do not think that the man ever visited Fife, let alone Illyria or Venice.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team

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

Subject lacks the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources as is currently the case here and a BEFORE didn't come up with anything better. PROD was removed without a rationale so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure this will letter of the law qualify but deleting this also feels like removing part of a set of college football stats articles. I can't make a source based argument for keep, but this isn't a delete which "feels" like it makes the encyclopaedia better. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the info can be covered in a different article? That being said, wikipedia isn't everything. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if a better article or article title is established, I'd just prefer not to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction as Sporting Flyer. The piece is well done and sourced, records a significant piece of college football history, and seems to make the encyclopeida better. And I did find this which discusses the topic of NAIA teams ranked by the number of postseason appearances. Cbl62 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE for the reasons stated by Cbl62. It would be a shame if the encyclopedia were to lose this information. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think there are any independent sources regarding the set, but individual sourcing on each team's total playoff appearances seems likelier to find. I agree with Cbl62 that a list such as this is encyclopedic. Therefore, I would prefer a different option than deleting. A rename or even merge target may work better. Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are suggestions for ATDs, but can we please come into an agreement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of North American ski resorts

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts

Articles for deletion/Comparison of North American ski resorts

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

Almost all of the data is cribbed from self-published sources, i.e. the websites of the various ski areas. They are notorious for inflating their statistics. I pointed this out almost four years ago and placed a "self-published" tag on the page, but nothing has improved in the intervening time. Finding good, solid, independent, reliable sources for these numbers is difficult if not impossible. Moreover, the ticket price has not been updated in five years and is off by almost a factor of two in some cases - it's an impossible maintenance task to keep that column up to date. The rest of it mostly reiterates marketing fluff.

See my comment on the talk page from Mar 2020: Talk:Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts#Self-published_tag Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There's already a tree of categories for ski resorts, don't need more than that. And as OP said the data reliability is a big question mark. Wizmut (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following how the article is WP:SYNTH. Care to elaborate? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statististics can easily be updated with new information in terms of the ticket price. As for categories such as "skiable acreage" and "vertical drop", I agree that the article should have original research, but there really isn't a practical way, although not impossible, to find that information other than from the resort themselves (which is dubious but the most accurate information we have). However, the amount of trails, ski lifts, and annual snowfall is easily verifiable information that is publicly accessible. I also do not believe this article acts as a WP:DIRECTORY, and provides encyclopedic value, thus need not be deleted. I could also see this article getting merged with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. Googoogootoo (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that "...the article should have original research" That goes against WP:OR.

That said, the most accurate numbers for vertical drop can be found by consulting the US Geological Survey data or similar official sets of data. There's a really nice web UI to that data at openskimap.org and anybody can pull up a ski area, find the top and bottom, and get the vertical drop. If you do that, you'll see that the numbers in this article are often way off. You'll also be doing original research which we are not supposed to base article content on.

So, the basic problem is that much of the data in the article is demonstrably false, and there's no good, solid, independent, reliable sourcing for the actual numbers that would allow us to bring the article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It would be great if we could find solid data, but we can't, and we shouldn't be repeating information that is clearly false. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: everyone knows that we have never published original content. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts participants: Miminity (talk · contribs), Maile66 (talk · contribs), Reywas92 (talk · contribs), Marincyclist (talk · contribs), and Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. All the sources are self-published. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and potentially merge with (/split into) List of ski areas and resorts in the United States/List of ski areas and resorts in Canada. While the article could use more independent sourcing and trimming of the likely outdated lift ticket prices, this is good content and organization and should be kept similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts. Data such as elevation and number of lifts are more informative than the simple bulleted list and does not make it a catalog. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article provides a good way of comparing North American ski resorts and has useful content that goes beyond simply a list of names and cities like the main list. I suggest renaming the article to "List of..." so it is in-line with convention, and removing ticket prices per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but it should be kept and the statistics can be updated as-necessary. Marincyclist (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant question my be found at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process which says:

Verifiability: if an article is unverified, but verification seems possible, it may be worth keeping. However, articles with mainly unverifiable content should be deleted.

So, does it seem possible to verify all or even most of this data? If so, it may be worth keeping. But I haven't heard of a path towards finding reliable sourcing for most of the data, so my take is that it does not seem possible i.e. the article contains "mainly unverifiable content". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are websites such as onthesnow.com, slopestat.com, skiresort.info, and powderhounds.com that all contain most of the relevant statistics listed in this article. I also don't think ski resorts "inflating" figures is really as common as some say. Marincyclist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick spotcheck shows that onthesnow.com & slopestat.com just reproduce whatever numbers the resorts provide. skiresort.info gets some of them right (as per USGS data) and repeats what the resorts claim for others. powderhounds.com only covers US West & Vermont. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational list to list all the articles for a similar thing together. They should be split by nation though. Valid information list. Lists are more useful than categories because more information is listed, helping people find what they are looking for far better than a category can. I don't believe the prices should be listed, since that's not usually something that is done. Even in the articles linked to it doesn't list the price. I don't think any business an legally lie about information, so no reason to doubt how much snowfall or measurements they have. If a government website can be found listing the information, or a reliable source that list this information, that would be better to use as references. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment shouldn't this be List of North American ski resorts? Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's issues with this article (notably out of date information), but it's still helpful for easily comparing hills and getting a high-level description of each. Being able to sort by any given category is very useful to see a hill's given ranking, something other site don't accurately have. "Marketing fluff" is a bit harsh, what mountains are inflating their statistics? ReidMoffat (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...what mountains are inflating their statistics?

Nearly every ski area in the midwest overstates their vertical. Accurate stats are the exception rather than the norm. If we wind up keeping this list, I'll be happy to point them out. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caravanserais of Iran

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

Entirely unsourced, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, previously draftified but the author decided to move back to mainspace so nominating here instead. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Iran. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic in question is a valid one, but the list cannot remain as is, per the nominator's explanation. Some of these can be sourced by using the list of inclusions at the UNESCO World Heritage Site ([6]), which brings my attention to the already existing list at The Persian Caravanserai. Given that the latter article is essentially a list article of its own and is otherwise very awkward in name and scope, the ideal scenario in my view would be to merge these two together (preferably with a clearer title like List of caravanserais in Iran) and use the sourced UNESCO list as a starting point for a proper list article. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by R Prazeres. This is essentially a WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a good and important subject but needs being referenced and improved not completely deleted. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Lebanon

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

The page is a list article with only one entry, specifically Middle East Airlines. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is only the case now because all other airlines have been moved to List of defunct airlines of Lebanon. Recon rabbit 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a defined set of lists. Arguably this could be merged with the defunct airlines list, but I don't really see any reason to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguably the best course of action would be to merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into this article. It doesn't make much sense to have a list article with one entry. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into it. BilletsMauves^€500 12:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Gheus (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

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

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lorstaking (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the portions referenced to secondary sources to X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97, respectively, in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't speak with certainty for the original series, but with X-Men 97 there are various articles about the comic book issues/storylines than inspired each individual episode, as well as some of the differences between across mediums. In a few instances, I've seen the same with episodes from the OG cartoon too.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as I noted, why does this specific list article need to exist then? I've pointed out how this material is already covered at the X-Men '97 article where it is most appropriate. This article is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the List of X-Men: The Animated Series episodes and X-Men '97 as needed as an alternative. Not seeing enough to make this WP:LISTN, but inspirations for specific works is something that is routinely included in creative articles. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. St Anselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. St Anselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NLIST which says:
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; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. 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.

The Times has covered his five-wicket haul performances in detail in his obituary ([7]) and same is the case with other obituaries where they covered his five-wicket hauls [8], [9] - these sources partially cover his five-wicket hauls and meet the requirement of WP:NLIST. He was one of the greatest cricketers of England (there is a trophy named after him, i.e. Bob Willis Trophy) so obviously there are a lot of books and magazines that have covered his wicket-hauls. I found some on Google Books like [10]. The current referencing of the list is not ideal but someone with access to paid sources can find more sources to expand the list. Thanks. Gheus (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times, Scotsman, and Graun articles do not mention five-wicket hauls at all. They mention total wickets taken, the average numbers of wickets taken, 27 wickets in five tests, and so-forth but fifers aren't mentioned at all. That isn't partial coverage - that's no coverage. No-one is questioning whether Bob Willis himself is notable, just whether a listing of all of his 5-wicket hauls is notable. The GBooks link isn't visible to me. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR, just a repeat of content that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources discuss various notable performances where sometimes his getting some number of wickets in a match is mentioned alongside other standard match recap stats. They are not covering the concept of "repeated n-wicket hauls", let alone validating the threshold of 5 wickets in particular. If we accepted such arbitrary passing stats one of these lists could be made for each type of stat for almost every famous cricketer and certainly most MLB/NFL/NBA players. JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of no-hitters thrown by the New York Yankees is a red link for some reason... FOARP (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw the invitation at WT:CRIC, and have read both Bob Willis and the list. I can see no good reason to keep the list, but plenty of reasons to delete it. As JoelleJay has pointed out, the obituary sources do not talk about the number of times Bob Willis took five wickets in an innings—as regards his bowling performances, they essentially focus on his outstanding match at Headingley in 1981—and I believe that, as a "grouping or set in general", this fails WP:NLIST. I completely agree with Ajf773 about the statistics, and I do not think any cricket article should be based on statistics derived from a database source. There are four paragraphs of text introducing the list, but I am not seeing anything that isn't in the main article and, again, the information is nearly all derived from statistics. I think FOARP is right about WP:AVOIDSPLIT because the split-list doesn't have notability—it is nothing more than a statistical offshoot that cannot stand alone, under the terms of WP:GNG. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bob Willis, main of the reasons by those who have !voted delete is that this is not sufficiently notable to be a standalone list. In that case the obvious solution (imo) should be to merge the content into the main article, thus retaining content that is deemed featured worthy rather than destroying it entirely. JP (Talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nothing on Wiki is ever “destroyed”. Even deleted material can undeleted (ask an admin).

2) The total number of fifers and details descriptions of notable wicket-hauls are already discussed in depth on Bob Willis’s article, so what is there to merge here that isn’t already there?

3) How is this statistical minutiae WP:DUE in a general biography? FOARP (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many cricketing biographies in book form and on Wikipedia (at FA/GA level) include 'Statistical summary' sections at the end, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included in such as section. Fifers are not statistical minutiae in cricket hence this list being created in the first place. JP (Talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t be headed for delete. But why isn’t it enough to provide the prose description of important wicket hauls, together with the total count of fifers and other statistical information already supplied the info box? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my initial response, most of those !voting delete have stated in their reasoning that this should not be a separate list. My reaction to that is merge rather than delete. The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose. JP (Talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". I'm not convinced that this article meets this criterion. Although the stats are partially covered in the Bob Willis infobox, I think more information can be merged into the parent article. Like JP, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would the table and prose be sourced to to qualify as BALASP? We have no coverage of "5-wicket hauls" as a topic, so how would we justify including data with that arbitrary cutoff? JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "We have no coverage of 5-wicket hauls as a topic" mean? We have a page on it and it is frequently mentioned on the Bob Willis page. It is not an arbitrary cutoff, it is one of the main statistics as shown by the infobox. JP (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have coverage of it as a topic in the context of Willis. Since no secondary independent sources are discussing the relevance of specifically Willis' five-wicket hauls, it would be undue to cover it with a giant table and prose in the Willis article. Moreover, on that page every single mention but one of "taking five wickets" in a given match is being drawn from pure primary stats rather than secondary prose, and in the one Wisden ref where getting a fifer is mentioned in prose, it's because he got exactly five wickets and they're just reporting that fact. It is OR to emphasize aspects of a subject beyond how they are treated in sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of coverage as a topic is the argument against this standalone list. If the five wicket hauls are covered throughout the prose then I fail to see how a summary table of those is going to bring undue balance. JP (Talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay's argument is that, since secondary sources don't cover this anyway, it's not clear why we need to cover it in detail in our article on Bob Willis. We already give the total number of fifers scored by Bob Willis in their infobox so how is it WP:DUE to include a table listing every single one? Since the notable ones are covered in prose anyway, why do we need a tabular listing? Additionally the Bob Willis article is already verging on WP:TOOLONG territory at 69 kB prose size.

FOARP (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources do cover the individual five-wicket haul performances just not as a collective. To quote my earlier response: "The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose." BTW fifers are not scored. JP (Talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is undue to highlight a topic that has not received attention at all. None of the sources listed here or in the articles discuss his getting five-wicket hauls in a way that would imply "five" is a notable threshold for him as a category; they merely mention his picking N wickets as part of his overall performance in individual matches, with N being anywhere from 3 to 5+. The vast majority of sources for the table are also primary stats, which directly conflicts with our policy Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. for precisely the reason that policy exists: we cannot draw conclusions that are not already found in IRS sources. With the table, we are drawing the conclusion that Willis' five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy category of achievement when they are not treated as such in sources. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation beyond what the source actually says. JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Test bowling records on Cricinfo (https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/format/test-matches-1/category/bowling-records-4): Most five-wickets-in-an-innings in a career, Most consecutive five-wickets-in-an-innings, Youngest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take a maiden five-wickets-in-an-innings. No 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8. In cricket, five wicket hauls are considered an important achievement, it is not an arbitary OR statistic that you are attempting to portray it as. JP (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an arbitrary statistic as it pertains to Willis, because we do not have coverage of it for Willis. Databases also aren't evidence of secondary coverage anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

AfDs for this article:

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

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:LASTTIME. Congrats on managing to get three separate arguments to avoid combined into a single short sentence or two. Nor does your WP:UGC link confer even a whiff of notability to the topic, which if it were so obviously notable, wouldn't require resorting to a French source in the first place. Moreover, if you had actually looked at those previous nominations that you brought up, you'd see they were split between delete, keep, and no consensus. And the keep was part of a bundle so is harder to judge on its own. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't feel strongly enough about it to buy the book on C S Lewis, which is obviously one of the major sources, and I don't propose to start writing articles without access to the sources. But the source does exist, which makes deletion awkward. We shouldn't delete just because we can't be bothered to read. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Without reading, we cannot be sure the sources exist or discuss the topic in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV (i.e. are not mentions in passing). As for the book, have you checked Z-library/Anna's Archive? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked Anna's archive because in my country it is illegal to do so. I do not think we should assume that a source we haven't read is inadequate. To be fair, it's actually the job of the proposer to demonstrate that the sources are inadequate. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that even the concept of a heptalogy is notable, let alone something that justifies creating a list of them -- a list with a criterion which can be difficult to settle without performing OR due to questions of whether books belong in the same series or not by being set in the same universe (Neal Stephenson's come to mind here). Nor have any convincing arguments been put forward. Frankly, I'm highly dubious that anything past trilogy really deserves an article, but we'll leave that for another day I guess. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the newly created series fiction article. I think this information should be somewhere, so I would not have voted delete at the last AfD, but I think it fits well here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A heptalogy is not just a series of seven fiction books: a quick look on Google Scholar shows that it also refers to dialogues by Plato [11] and operas by Stockhausen [12] (which he planned for performance on each evening of a week, so the seven-ness was definitely significant). So redirecting to an article about series fiction would be inappropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument presents a reason not to redirect, but no reason to keep. We could disambiguate or delete it instead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keeping is the same as Elemimele's. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources given merely use the word in reference to a single occurrence each, with no particular attempt to consider them as a group, nor to discuss the specific concept of "heptalogy" in any detail, so they do nothing to establish any kind of notability. Nor does your vague wave of "improve" give any indication how this could be improved. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin, we already have a similar list, that is the List of Indian monarchs (which also simultaneously acts as a list of all the dynasties, empires and kingdoms that ruled in India), so this list would be a bit redundant if it were renamed to that. AlvaKedak (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [13] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [14]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourced, well-structured and illustrated. A helpful timeline. Might be renamed List of Hindu monarchies (and the LS indicating "including empires/dynasties" etc) (or List of Hindu kingships). Improve and clean up by adding refs to Spellman, W. M. (2004). Monarchies 1000-2000. Reaktion Books., pp. 129-130, Lal, D. (2005). The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D.. Oxford UP, passim and a lot of other references that together prove the topic was evidently addressed as a set in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:NLIST. -Mushy Yank. 18:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading the cited sources, as well as the those floated during this discussion, I would say that 99% of the content here is unsupported by them. Studying a few random entries: Kushan Empire, Licchavis of Nepal, and Pala Empire, I can't agree with the claim that "most of the entries are clearly correct" or the idea that complex information about 150+ empires and dynasties can be shoehorned into a verifiable table. List of Indian monarchs needs a six-column table just to lay out different views on the start and end dates of the Pala Empire! Some of the kings of the Kushan Empire and Pala Empire were Hindu, other were Buddhist or Zoroastrian, a nuance lost by trying to squeeze messy history into a pretty table. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reiterating the call for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear colleague: There are almost no sources listed for the items on this list. The three serious sources at the end have been added by me to justify the removal of mythical dynasties into their own table at the bottom (prior to that surgery these kingdoms were also in the main table with completely fictional dates and details, and the only two sources covered two tiny aspects, see the Old revision of List of Hindu empires and dynasties). My three sources thus do not support the information in the list itself and I am practically sure that most of the dates at the top of the table are also fictional (the ones I have marked with {{cn}} contradict our own articles about the kingdoms, not the sources - that are mostly absent in these articles, too). I do not understand what can be done to verify, for example, the 1900BC claims for the Hindu kingdom at the top of the list, as mainstream historians apparently declare that Aryan people (proto-Indians) had settled in what is now India many centuries later. For the avoidance of doubt, I am no expert on the subject. Викидим (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would suggest keeping this article but removing the references to "Hindu". Perhaps the article can be titled "List of empires and dynasties of the Indian subcontinent". The subject matter of this article includes proto- and early history which by its very nature will not have sufficient recorded references. Nevertheless, the information contained here is useful, and most users will know to consume it with caution. I do not believe there is a deliberate attempt at creating disinformation (hoax), and I do not believe there is bias. It does lack verifiability, and can be addressed with appropriate disclaimers, which I believe the author has already put in place in the introduction. I think this is a useful enough compilation that it should be improved as much as possible, but not deleted. Rsata (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No misinformation? Really ? The creator has included Buddhist empires/dynasty in this list. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Rsata, the article is a complete mess. I tried to improve it by removing several non-Hindu dynasties from the list and found some nonexistent dynasties mentioned as well. But after making these changes, I realized that the article is in such poor condition that it can hardly be improved to GA status. The only viable option left is WP:BLOWITUP. NXcrypto Message 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the list has many issues given by posters above. I would suggest that this is due to being an example of the complex cross-categorization mentioned in WP:NLIST. This list is essentially trying to tie together 3 aspects, "Hindu", "empires", and "dynasties". Issues have been raised with both "Hindu" and "empires" above, so there isn't an intersection of two that really works here, and the various cleanups proposed seem to essentially create new lists with new criteria. CMD (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. This article has a lot of issues, it erroneously categorizes dynasties like the Pala dynasty and the Kalabhra dynasty as Hindu despite evidence to the contrary. It either needs to be deleted immediately, or it needs to be heavily edited to fix all these issues, which could take a long time.

AlvaKedak (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I nominated this article because its current state is beyond improvement, various editors tried to improve the article but failed. So once it get removed, a new article on the same topic can be created by anyone with reliable sources as the topic is indeed notable. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup: I know the article has a lot of issues it needs cleanup on, and any dynasty or state listed which is not provably Hindu should be removed, but the list itself is mostly factual besides those areas that need cleanup and serves the purpose of listing states following the major religion of Hinduism and plays an important role in the histories of South Asia and Southeast Asia. I would suggest we get the Wiki projects on Hinduism and India at least to assist in making the article right instead of scrapping it. J390 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music

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

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination appears to have been made because User:Fram failed to notice previously that the article existed and doesn't believe that Scandinavia is a clearly-defined region. This isn't a copy of 1882 in Norwegian music; in fact, content of that article has been copied from 1882 in Scandinavian music just to try to prove a point. Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles for separate countries? Will they even be completed? Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2017 version of 1882 in Norwegian music [15]: in your article 1882 in Scandinavian music you have the same three entries with the exact same reference (even down to the copied access-date). Please tell me how you achieved this without copying the older Norway article? Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not copies, they are used in a thoughtful way; the wording is not identical. Not that this has anything to do with the proposed deletion of the article. Deb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 1881 in Scandinavian music to this nomination, as the same reasons apply. Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- in a previous version of this article, now at 1880s in Danish music, I had removed an entry where the sources indicate that the year is unknown (early 1880s), not certain to be 1881; another entry where the only link with 1881 is that the much earlier event is described in a letter from that year, hardly something important for 1881; and had corrected the title of a work. The claims of "Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles" when they are started as unattributed copies of someone else's work, and then expanded with such entries, ring rather hollow. Fram (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Once again you are being careless with the truth. The only reason these single-country articles exist is that you have just created them in order to make a point. There is simply not enough material to build them. Deb (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The Norway article existed long before you created the Scandinavia one. As you are well aware of course, since you started your creation by copying entries from that page with minor adjustments. And the suggestion below, which I already did in part, is to change them into decades-articles, because they will otherwise indeed be rather empty. Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See User talk:Knuand#2016 in Scandinavian music for a full explanation of why these articles exist. Deb (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the justification for a page, or any compelling reason to intersect Scandinavia, music and an individual year. Moreover, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire at the time. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it was the Grand Duchy of Finland - that's why it's not appropriate to create year articles for Finland before this date, as Fram is attempting to do. Deb (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Years of the 19th century in Finland. Fram (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that proves my point. Deb (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge If Scandinavian music is an entity itself, then the national articles should be merged to the regional ones. If the national identity is more important, then the regional article should be deleted. There's not a need for this sort of duplication. Either way, for this kind of narrow topic, I'd rather see them as 1880s in X music instead of individual years; when there's not enough info for standalone articles, presenting them with broader context is better. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, I started with individual years but have changed some into decade articles, will probably do the same for the other ones. Fram (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, your plan is to remove individual year articles and put the material I've already created into decade articles. And what are you going to do about the years between 1882 and 2009? I'm not going to do the work for you. Deb (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to create the articles in the way consensus seems to be trending (not for Scandinavia as a whole, but by country), then you don't create these articles, simple. No idea why you only want to do this if it can happen as "year in Scandinavia" and not as "decade in Denmark" and so on (which will result in half the number of pages, should make life easier). Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, great, let's just have an article for every ten years and leave out all the detail. But where does that leave your argument about "duplication"? Deb (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [16] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [17]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [18]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. And, for Reywas92, what merge target article are you suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - James500s rationale is correct. The Google books source looks good. Clearly room for expansion as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Scandinavian music

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

We have individual pages for 2015 in Danish music and the other 4 Scandinavian countries, there is no reason to have another page grouping these 5 as well, "Scandinavian music" is not some monolithic block or typical genre.

The same applies to these other years as well:

Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [19] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [20]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [21]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As you are fully aware from the previous conversation, most of the years don't have articles for individual countries within Scandinavia. The time for this discussion is when you've created the relevant articles. Deb (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [22]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [23] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scandinavian folk music is inherently Scandinavian, and should be included in this article, regardless of where it is produced. If Scandinavian folk music was produced in Adélie Land, it would potentially belong in this article. If some of the music in the Baltic nations and Russia is Scandanavian folk music, that does not imply that the rest of their music is Scandanavian. When ABBA perform in Britain, they are performing Swedish music, and that does not imply that Rod Stewart's music is also Swedish. If a reliable source says in express words that music is Scandanavian, there is no original research involved in its inclusion in the article. The national boundaries are not well defined in relation to music. The national boundaries give no help in classifying something like Finnish-Swedish music. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        The entries are not about Scandinavian folk music. And that would seem like such a small niche that a "year in x" page is not warranted. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Scandinavian music" is not a notable concept. Astaire (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all.James500s rationale and Google books research is what convinces me about notability. Also there is room for expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through Google Books to find two publications from more than a century ago ([24] [25]) that briefly use the term does not demonstrate that "Scandinavian music" is a notable concept. Nor does it justify that we need an article about "2015 in Scandinavian music" in which any band from Scandinavia is included, when all the sources presented so far are about classical or folk music. Astaire (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my comments by cherry picking from them. I did not "dig" through Google Books, nor did I find only two publications. In addition to the ten sources that I have already linked to directly, I could point to a mountain of other sources, such as Bo Wallner's Vår tids musik i Norden: från 20-tal till 60-tal (1968), which is 435 pages on the subject of Scandanavian music from the 1920s to the 1960s, and John Horton's Scandanavian Music (1963), and Yoell's The Nordic Sound (1974) which "aims to supply . . . information about Scandanavian music", or to a mountain of other comments such as "those characteristics which belong to Scandanavian music": [26] and references to the "characteristics of Scandinavian music" in other books, such as Britannica. If you are going to argue about the number of sources I have cited, I have to ask: How many sources do you want me to cite? Please specify the number of sources you want, and I will cite that number of sources.

The reality is that anyone with eyes can see that "Scandanavian music" obviously satisfies GNG and is obviously a notable topic. The real question for this AfD is whether the obviously notable topic of Scandanavian music is sufficiently redundant to other notable topics that the "discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" in WP:N applies. That is the question you should address. James500 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Vanderwaalforces: WP:RELIST says "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure . . . repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" (bold text and emphasis in the original). If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either. It is not possible to force people to !vote. James500 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 Why do you think relisting a discussion for the third time is forcing people to !vote? That is a strange comment. Also, If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either is this statistically correct? I mean, I can't link right off the bat, but I have seen discussions where the outcome was clear after a third relist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vanderwaalforces: WP:RELIST is a guideline and should normally be followed, because guidelines are supposed normally be followed. "I have seen discussions where the outcome was clear after a third relist" is not a good reason to deviate from the guideline, because you have failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that would justify deviation from the guideline in this case. The guideline would not say "in general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" if there did not exist site consensus that third AfD relists are generally unlikely to produce consensus. If you think there are exceptional circumstances that justify the exceptional step of a third relist in this case, you should say what those exceptional circumstances are. (How is this AfD different to other AfDs?) If you think that the guideline should be changed to allow third relists without exceptional circumstances, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process is that way. You should not relist this AfD just because you want to take a chance and roll the dice in the hope that the third relist might produce consensus by sheer good luck. Relisting AfDs on the off chance that someone else might in theory show up and advance new arguments is a nuisance to editors who want the AfD to end and go away. I would rather delete the article than waste more of my and the other participants time by relisting the AfD again. I have seen discussions where a third relist produced no consensus, no further participants, or the participation of a bunch of socks. James500 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "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". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these were replies to the user, not my overall argument. glman (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like something which should be included in the encyclopaedia, but may not be notable enough for its own page. Maybe a merge would be best, but I don't really have any suggestion on what would be a good place to merge other than I don't really want to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA keeps track of this stuff. Conyo14 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that means. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without going too deep into it, sports stats are more than likely better kept and up to date on the primary source than here. As for the merge target, I suppose List of NCAA Division II football programs could work? It might be overkill though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all - we have plenty of primary sourced stats tables throughout this website, and it's kind of the point of Wikipedia. The only question is whether it's worth a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, IMO the issue with a merge would be that it would add so much length to another article it would lead to a proposal to spin it off. For example, adding this info to the list of d2 programs as suggested above would overwhelm that list. Concur with your most recent comment though. glman (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; we're yet to reach a consensus on whether this should be kept, deleted, or merged on elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDATABASE. Frank Anchor 17:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

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

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicated information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It’s repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any missing paragraph summaries can be copied from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains duplicate content. But keep the NYC article. Drushrush (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deletion does not solve the problem of duplicated content or an ugly article. A better solution is to rewrite the articles so that the content is county specific and the National and State level agencies are listed at the top level of the hierarchy, only, with merely a reference to there being a higher geographic level of agencies. In other instances where I have noticed duplicate articles about law enforcement in a county, the articles about the law enforcement agencies in that county have been merged into the geographic articles of where they operate. If these articles are not going to be kept, then I would suggest a Merge (or at least a redirect) of the Long Island article into the article about Long Island, where there is a section already. Also Merge (or redirect) the Westchester County into Westchester County, where there is already a section, too. Like others have also asked, I ask to Keep the New York City article separate, as it is a bit large to merge back into the New York City section on public safety, and other subarticles exist on related topics also exist, for that very large article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. The NY state article is monstrously sized already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. Thriley (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a meaningful list of the local law enforcement agencies as a standalone. Agnostic about splitting off New York City agencies and don't get me started on the question of whether or not Brooklyn and Queens are part of Long Island. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

U.S. Automobile Production Figures (via WP:PROD)