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 philosophies

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:LISTCRUFT with no clear inclusion criteria, but generally when someone uses the plural "philosophies" it means they're selling you something that doesn't work on daytime tv, this should be soft-deleted/redirected to Outline of philosophy Psychastes (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Lots of overlap with Glossary of philosophy, could merge there. I’ll keep it, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
got any rationale for keeping, or WP:JUSTAVOTE? Psychastes (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it meets WP:NLIST by leaps and bounds. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: this page is like the outline or glossary pages but worse because it is just alphabetical with no additional information. If the ability to hover over a link to see a preview didn't exist it would be useless. Moritoriko (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be happy with a redirect if missing items were added to the glossary. They have hundreds more links in common then disperate. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the list needs a better format, I think there is no reason for deletion. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

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

WP:NOTDATABASE，the article looks like data tables? 日期20220626 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, Lists, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page really has a weak point that it contains little description. But that means that the description should be added. Deletion of the whole atricle with true and virified statistics for the topic, designed in convenient form, instead of adding the description is not a good strategy.

Possible solution: mark the page as a stub. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible solution: blow it up and start over again. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a person who will start it over again. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of words with the suffix -ology

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of words ending in ology

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already a suitable page for redirect. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to -logy. There is no great and compelling reason why this content could not be maintained as a section of the existing article with that header. BD2412 T 21:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The compelling reason is WP:NOTDICT, which I elaborate on below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: WP:NOTDICT allows for articles such as this. I think the confusion here is that this is a list article that happens to include definitions as secondary information. That is easy to solve as WP:NOTDICT says: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions." Quoting from WP:WORDISSUBJECT: "In some cases, a word or phrase may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.)". This "article on words" includes an introduction with secondary sources, many of which cover the general topic of ology words. This meets the threshold for notability and WP:STANDALONE. This could be even better met by merging as suggested above. Furthermore, the majority of the terms in this list are already in Wikipedia, indicating notability above that of typical Wiktionary entries. Finally, there is a long precedent for lists relating to words in Wikipedia. Lists of English words provides some examples, as will a search for the various categories for lists of words. Rublamb (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a misreading of NOTDICT. Please see my explanation below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I requested this at WT:AFD, but apparently someone else nominated it without my nom statement, which I'm copying below:
Contested WP:BLAR. This list is a clear violation of WP:NOTDICT. There is no underlying concept for the list here, merely words that share a particular suffix. We shouldn't have this list more than we should have lists for every possible suffix (or prefix) in English (not to mention German, Swahili, etc etc). There's nothing special about this particular suffix that warrants a list like this. The little bit of possibly encyclopedic content in the intro is already covered at the article on -logy (which I'm still a little skeptical about, but it's at least near the border, not 20 miles past it).
To elaborate on the NOTDICT failure a little, note that this is akin to the example there which indicates that "rocket" has a single entry at Wiktionary, while it has multiple pages at Wikipedia (salad rocket, rocket engine, rocket vehicle, etc). Here we have words like both "biology" and "technology", which have the same suffix, but that suffix has a different meaning in each -- indeed, the lead of the list even points out this fact.
Likewise, there are words which share the same underlying suffix of -logy (which -ology is merely a form of), like wikt:archelogy (not archaeology!), which is still a field of study, but has the alternate form of the suffix. This is akin to another red flag indicated at NOTDICT (words with different spellings but the same meaning should be at the same article). Ditto for words like "trilogy".
And to add a bit based on the above merge proposal, I would specifically oppose that, since there's nothing to merge here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thems the breaks. If you want to nominate things without another editor exercising discretion in the process you can register an account. Jahaza (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As described in the article's lede, the connection between the components of this list is that words ending in "ology" or "logy" are about a field of study or discipline. There might be a few exceptions that are included for completionism and educational purposes, but these do not diminish the overall concept behind this list. The differing meanings come from the front half of the word, not the suffix. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not the connection, as I mentioned above, as there are words with this suffix that are not a field of study or discipline, such as "technology" (there are others, too). And there are plenty of fields of study that don't use either suffix, such as physics, economics, etc etc. The only actual link here is a suffix, which violates NOTDICT, both in letter and spirit, for the reasons I explained above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common thread is defined in the cited secondary sources and in the topic's main article. Oxford Languages dictionary defines technology as "the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences". Thus, it is a field of study. We could essentially rename this article "List of fields of study" which is actually an interesting approach. Then, this would be a glossary that has a more obvious reason for being complied. The definitions, which are secondary content in this article, could also be removed, which is something I considered doing a while back. I believe that would also solve your dictionary-ish concerns. Rublamb (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in question was nominated for deletion previously. This AfD should likely be updated to mention that more prominently. DonIago (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but you could have just done so yourself. Note that it was speedily kept more on procedural grounds than anything else, running only about 90 minutes, so is more than ripe for a new discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could have, if I'd known how to. DonIago (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge, based upon the above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Merging this indiscriminate list would damage the proposed target, and it is a clear case of WP:NOTDICT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is best thought of as a set index WP:SETINDEX and is useful for navigation. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIA pretty clearly explains why this isn't one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid pointing to an entire article doesn't really explain what your objection is. Jahaza (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Redlinks that don't go to an article about a respective study should probably be removed, but this is an appropriate navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not valid as a navigational list any more than "Articles that end in -ism" is valid for the reasons I described above...or articles that start with "metro-" ...or pick any old random prefix or suffix. Are you saying "technology" should be removed? What about "archelogy" (the example I gave above, which doesn't end in -ology, but is a field of study). What about "physics"? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a dictionary would touch this. -logy only lists relatively frequently used words like trilogy, tetralogy, etc. It doesn't branch out further afield, nor should it begin now (or ever). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube suspensions

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

Fails WP:NLIST—I cannot find any sources discussing persons or channels suspended from YouTube as a group. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article also appears to contain factual errors—at random, the inclusion of Shane Dawson is false, as the source says his channel was demonetized, not suspended. Such falsehoods could constitute BLP violations. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay to delete this list. If there is a lack of reliable, secondary sources about how many channels have been suspended from YouTube, then it might be strange to have an article listing YouTube suspensions. Plus, this article has been so big that, unless if one watches it, it has been hard to detect the multiple issues against Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons that the article attracts. The suspensions from YouTube may already be mentioned on articles about channels or people with YouTube channels.

So...

you can delete this. CarlFilip19 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network

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

Fails WP:NLIST as sources do not talk about the stations as a whole. Most of the stations do not have Wikipedia pages and some that do should be sent to AfD as well (including some that have no sources at all). CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Possibly Merge summary/overview (not yet written) into TV5 Network Inc. Jdcooper (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TV5 Network Inc. does not provide any listing TV stations on their annual reports. Only on the NTC TV stations as of December 2024. Vineyard93 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the NTC list count as reliable? RandomMe98 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources. IP range blocked for tiresome pinging. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ohnoitsjamie: it's the same compulsive over-tagger we were discussing recently. Jdcooper (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is tough about this list is that we have to deal with infrequent NTC list updates exfiltrated through Freedom of Information Act requests. They can confirm existence at least. And then we have many many stations where there is insufficient material to pass GNG because of poor source availability, even sometimes when a station has been on for decades. This is a useful redirect target at AfD, and while I understand if people have qualms over sourcing, this page resolves lots of thorny problems. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in the United Arab Emirates

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST, is contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are lists for most nations; I'm not seeing how this one is necessarily different from the rest. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point to WP:OTHER if anyone has similar thoughts. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you wish to propose this as a test case for deleting the lot (which I wouldn't oppose), but otherwise I think an explanation how this one is going to be worse than the others is in order. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, because it hasn't been discussed as a group. It's a collection of links to external sites, hence WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I fail to see how the chapters of a National Fraternity don't constitute a group, there are *no* external Links outside the References (which is where they should be) and Alpha Sigma Phi doesn't have chartering dates at a single web page (like most fraternities and sororities do) and as such, a larger number of references are needed, which doesn't affect whether the page should exist anyway.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources I don't think the various chapters have been discussed as a group. The references are just links to individual universities that have a chapter. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination is in error. This article has at least two secondary sources that cover the chapters of Alpha Sigma Phi as a group. One is a Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, the main authority on all Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Alpha Sigma Phi was included in every edition of Baird's, including the edition(s) cited in this article. The second source is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, a scholarly project of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As is the typical positioning with sources that cover all entries in a table, these sources are provided in the lede above the table. In addition, the links within the table/list go to other Wikipedia articles, such as the main article about Alpha Sigma Phi and the various colleges and cities that host chapters, not external websites. Also, there is a precedent of moving long lists of fraternity, sorority, and honor society chapters to a secondary list article, rather than maintaining the list in the main organizational article. List of Alpha Sigma Phi chapters is a good example of a list that is simply too long to functionally work in the main article about the fraternity. Both WP:FRAT and WP:UNI have a preference for this type of list over including content in the main university article or the main Greek letter organization article. In short, this article not only meets the requirements for notability and a list article, but is also the preference of the main WikiProjects that oversee this content. Rublamb (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I also concur that this is a ridiculous nomination. The AfD nomination came out of nowhere, on specious claims of a lack of discussion and references. The references are simple to fix, and one need not delete!, delete!, delete! in such cases to resolve the problem. Our Project group fixes, polices and improves the articles in our area of interest and expertise (some 3,500) methodically and via consensus. As a significant, nationally known fraternity, with chapters on many campuses that are recognized by their student life administration, many of which have existed for more than 50 years with multiple available references, this group and its individual chapters are notable. This designation is consistent with other articles, prior editing practice, consensus, and Wikipedia editing policies. The nominator is not a Project participant, but merely is taking an arbitrary shot at the article without understanding.

Other Project editors are currently working on reference improvements, and have clarified why this article was correctly spun off as a subordinate article to the main Alpha Sigma Phi article. A very clear rationale. Jax MN (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. It is going to be kept per WP:SNOW anyway, no need to keep it open and clutter AfD. It was a mistake to nominate it and I am going to be more careful with my AfD nominations in the future. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League arenas

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

This list fails to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. The only sources cited here are QMJHL Arena Guide (personal web site by a hockey fan and not reliable), and Stadiumjourney.com which is essentially a database for stadiums. Although components of this list could be cited, without independent reliable sources, this list is not notable or encyclopedic. An option would be to merge the information into the league's article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? Aside from the nom's cogent arguments, and that there's nothing out there discussing these as a group as LISTN requires, compiling this for a junior league fails the cruft test. Ravenswing 11:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of firewalls

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

Only one reference of dubious reliability. The topic may arguably meet WP:NLIST, yes, but what we have here is 99% WP:OR (likely obsolete, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a legit thing to have, would be surprised if no good sources compare. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be almost entirely original research, therefore its accuracy is very unclear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is original research. desmay (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Hercule Poirot stories

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

De facto a a list of minor fictional characters, but just a plot summary and comments on who played them in some movies and such. Mostly unreferenced. Not seeing how this meets WP:NLIST and such. Possible WP:ATD-R is Hercule Poirot, I assume at least one of these characters is mentioned there, and there are likely redirects to this list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move and give this major cleanup. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Their argument seems pointless - move to where? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tambon in Thailand - N (Part 2)

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

If I understand correctly, these "Part 2" and "Part 3" articles are redundant with the content of List of tambon in Thailand (N–O). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't it against Wikipedia to have "Part 2 articles"? Either way, it's unencyclopedic to have them. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the person who created these forks never performed a proper split, resulting in orphaned duplicates. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I notice the creator's user talk page has a section about unnecessary undiscussed article splits, and the user has not edited in about 8 years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of endemic flora of Indonesia

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

This list article was started in 2011 and not much worked on after. A number of species on the list have since been renamed. A number of species are not confined to Indonesia. The basis of the list, being endemic to such a large and diverse country as Indonesia, seems contradictory to endemism's usually limited scope. There are numerous large islands of high endemism and biodiversity in the country: e.g. Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea etc., for which there are appropriate categories, e.g. Category:Flora of Sumatra and which could form the basis of better list articles. Declangi (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list, which is almost the same as the category list. --Moem-Meom (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have plenty of "endemic flora/fauna of X" articles, but all of those are restricted to manageable scales. This isn't - probably; I could be proven wrong. But in that case, the current unreferenced and heterogeneous mess is not a suitable basis for such an article. Delete, with no prejudice viz recreation from scratch with care and responsible sourcing. In the meantime, and probably sufficiently so, we have equivalent categories. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Character info are mostly unsourced with release info sources being unreliable. Not a plausible search term to be redirected. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive plotcruft, no context given. WP:INDISCRIMINATE failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I've seen similar lists survive deletion before, but that's where the sourcing covers the entire information presented, and doesn't go overboard with plot minutiae. Given the principle that plot is generally self-sourced from the work, the first part is more fatal to WP:NLIST than the latter. It is way too much though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article was split from the main Uma Musume Pretty Derby article last March, which had 223k bytes prior to the split, and the character list made up a good chunk of that at the time. While I'm not sure if the list as is is particularly well written, I also don't think that merging it back in to the main article would be helpful for the average reader, let alone deleting the article outright with no explanation of who makes an appearance. --Jnglmpera (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. These characters are mentioned in reliable sources (as used in the article and per WP:A&M/ORS) which include Anime News Network, Nikkan Sports, Comic Natalie and Oricon. In my opinion the character list needs to be trimmed down to just the main characters with character descriptions taken from the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I narrowed the article's scope to just include the horse girl characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Pakistan

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

Article has zero sources. Propose either deleting, or draftifying until sources are added. Danners430 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Pakistan. Danners430 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to incorrect deletion rationale. The article does have sources. They're misformatted in the "External links" section. Inline sources are highly preferred, but are not required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced properly per Bushranger, though I've removed the 'upcoming airlines' as that is completely unsourced by any of the external links and we should only list active airlines. Nathannah • 📮 22:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion given as this is a valid list article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even list articles need sources which was the original reason it was nominated - although Bushranger pointed out the mistake I made, which wasn’t this Danners430 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List articles serve a number of different purposes, sources may not necessarily be required especially if the page has a clear navigational purpose. SportingFlyer T·C 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to remove sources altogether, then we have to remove information such as “fleet size” - I’m sorry, but we can’t be expecting readers to hunt for sources in other articles - and per WP:CIRCULAR we shouldn’t be using other articles as sources anyway. Perhaps the solution is to simplify the list and remove information that changes frequently (like fleet size) - the rest is already sourced as Bushranger pointed out multiple days ago. Danners430 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just a list of relevant notable items. It does not need any sources. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular list does need sources due to the presence of the fleet size column - that at a minimum requires sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR. And I’d argue strongly that the rest should also have at least basic sourcing, which it already does as Bushranger pointed out many days ago. Danners430 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I got distracted these last few days. As @The Bushranger pointed out, there is basic sourcing in place, so I fully agree the nomination is incorrect and I’m happy to withdraw it. However, I do feel that if we’re going to have the “fleet size” column then that needs sourcing or removing. Danners430 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Ukraine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fully unsourced, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutiva (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not Namepedia. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say this to all lists of (sur)names, or just this one? Wikipedia is for research purposes, which includes last and first names. Littlelovedove (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it seems quite likely that there would be sourcing on this in the Ukrainian or Russian languages, if one searches for information about the history and etymology of Ukrainian surnames. I'm not seeing that there's been a lot of effort to search for sources in the relevant languages as per WP:BEFORE. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, the burden falls on those wanting to Keep an article (or who are Neutral) to find appropriate sources as long as a valid BEFORE has been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of very large lists; it is NOT a (phone) DIRECTORY. "likely there would be sourcing": that isn't how we work, and it wouldn't serve for a list article anyway - sources on history and etymology would assist with a text article, which would have to be written from scratch according to the putative sources, not from this list. It's junk, let's get rid of it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:@Chiswick Chap "that isn't how we work" what Wikipedia policy are you basing this on? My argument is based on WP:DILIGENCE, which as I understand it means that the onus is on the nominator to at least perform a basic check to show there are no sources, not on those voting to keep. Of course, if such a check has been performed, then keep voters would need to show the evidence to contradict it. Sometimes, it's obvious that there will be no sources in which case people may skip this step by WP:IAR, but that's not the case here. If this AfD is closed as keep or no consensus, then someone can take it to AfD a second time with a better nomination that evaluates the sources that exist (or shows that they do not); alternatively @Absolutiva or someone else can perform such a check in which case I will withdraw my vote. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Just saw Liz's response. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian surnames exists. A list is something different. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of military attachés and war correspondents in World War I

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

What possible reason is there to join two distinct groups in a "list" that is not a list, when the two groups have their own separate lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling: I see now in the talk page that the decision was made in 2022 to split the list in two. However, is still retaining an article (of sorts) the only way to keep the edit history? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution history must be preserved, one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be deleted, since the historical attribution before the split must be preserved. But the article is not needed now that both lists are split. So I guess options are either pick a redirect target somehow, or turn this into a brief disambigation page. MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of this page but in a way that enables us to preserve the attribution history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [1].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI. Deb (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - I have found several sources in Swedish media that cover Råfilm and things they have done. Even excluding coverage entirely about their films (I'm not sure if they count, it is about their productions) there are two in Sydsvenskan: [2] [3] and one in Proletären: [4].
I agree that the current article needs severe cleanup, and we should start from a clean slate by stubifying it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of their films: [5] [6] [7] AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been proposed for deletion because it is written promotionally, not because it's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG is a notability criteria. Stubifying solves the promotional content and I believe it is notable otherwise. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with stubification, At least with the current title and topic. I feel Detained/Forväret (2015) is the main subject but it does not meet WP:NFILM. You can find more if you search it's Swedish title (Forväret) but I couldn't find any coverage from non-promotional sources. That would be the only path to notability for Räfilm as it has received. I don't believe the limited semi- promotional swedish language sources are sufficient for stubification. I think the Swedish language sources also support that Forväret is the main notable topic , not Råfilm. This might be a good candidate to move to the Swedish language Wikipedia. If it is retained on English Wikipedia, I think reducing it to a stub about Forväret is the best move. There are plenty of indie films on Wikipedia that are notable but do not have notable studios or creators per WP:ORG InvisibleUser909 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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