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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. Rationales written by an LLM are unacceptable, the nominator advanced no arguments of their own as to why this should be deleted, and the previous nominations show this will have the same result of a keep. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 19:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst

AfDs for this article:

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

I am requesting a serious re-evaluation of "List of music considered the worst", as the article continues to raise fundamental concerns that have not been properly addressed in the multiple prior AfDs. While editors have repeatedly pointed to the presence of reliable sources, that argument has continually overlooked the key issue: the article violates core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NOR (No Original Research), WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View).

Key policy concerns

Synthesis and Original Research (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR)

The article compiles negative opinions from individual reliable sources and presents them as if they form a cohesive, broadly agreed-upon classification of certain songs or albums as “the worst.” However, no source makes this comprehensive claim. The list is a synthesis of disparate critical takes, which produces a conclusion not explicitly made by any cited source. This is a textbook case of original research, violating Wikipedia's core content policy.

Minimal, Subjective Sourcing (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE)

While the sources used are mostly reliable, many entries rely on only one or two subjective reviews, often rooted in personal taste or cultural context. This minimal sourcing does not support the wide-reaching claim implied by inclusion in a list of "the worst." Moreover, music criticism is inherently subjective and genre-sensitive. What may be negatively received in one context can be valued in another. The article gives undue weight to isolated critiques while ignoring broader audience reception, fanbases, or historical re-evaluations.

Lack of Defined Inclusion Criteria (WP:LISTN, WP:V)

The list does not adhere to any clearly defined or consistently applied criteria for what qualifies a work as one of "the worst." Some entries are based on critical reception, others on commercial failure or online memes. This arbitrary inclusion makes the list editorially driven rather than encyclopedic. Without explicit inclusion standards and consistent application, the article fails the basic standard expected of a list on Wikipedia.

Non-Neutral Framing and Presentation (WP:TONE, WP:TITLE)

The framing of the article, both in its title and its narrative lacks neutrality. Declaring works as “the worst” carries an implicit judgment that Wikipedia should not make. Even if retitled to something like “Music that received negative critical reception,” the article would still need to demonstrate balanced coverage and contextual depth, which it currently lacks.

Comparisons to Other Topics

I know that Wikipedia has many articles similar to this article. But there are differences. For the automobile review article, criticism is often based on scientific analysis or objective technical flaws, things like malfunctioning safety systems, poorly designed components, or subpar material quality. These criticisms are grounded in measurable performance, not just opinion. In the case of movies or video games, there are still clear points of evaluation, such as:

The budget versus revenue (a tangible indicator of reception and risk).
The professionalism or effectiveness of actors, developers, or artists in portraying characters or delivering a functional product.
The quality of visual effects, audio design, or storytelling, which while somewhat subjective are still discussed with technical and industry standards in mind.

But for music, what comparable objective criteria exist? Budget? Revenue? Lyrics? Even production quality is highly genre-specific. A lo-fi indie song and a hyper-polished pop single can both be artistically valid in different ways. Because millions of songs are released each year across wildly different styles and cultures, trying to categorize a handful of them as “the worst” without strong, consistent, and measurable standards turns the article into little more than a curated burn list based on taste, not fact.

Conclusion

This article has now gone through six AfDs, but none have adequately addressed these foundational policy issues. Repeated survival at AfD does not override persistent violations of Wikipedia's core content guidelines. The presence of a few reliable sources does not justify a synthesized, judgmental, and inconsistently sourced list. I respectfully urge deletion or, at minimum, a formal consensus to require a full rewrite in strict adherence to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LISTN standards. GogoLion (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. After 6 previous nominations, having the 7th nomination text generated by AI/LLM is not a good start. In fact, it's such a bad start that I file a motion to speedy keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has survived six separate AFDs now, as have similar articles related to film, video games, etc. There's a clear consensus and precedent for these articles existing. This nomination, while lengthy, does not actually add anything new that hasn't been discussed before. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and the nominator has made zero effort or attempts at that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of regional news websites of Jharkhand

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP; only one of the list entries, Prabhat Khabar, is a notable news website specifically based in Jharkhand. The article creator also made The Real Khabar which is up for deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, and Jharkhand. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to nominator's reasons, I'd note that this was also shot through with WP:ELNO-violating offsite links, both in an "URL" column and the references column, for each publication in the list — I've stripped those, but they clearly show that the intent here was to help drive traffic to their websites. As well, this just isn't a thing that would ordinarily be the topic of a standalone Wikipedia list anyway; we can do "Media in place" articles that cover print and broadcast media in that place within the same article, but we do not create a "list of news websites" that's standing alone as its own thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of passenger trains of Indian Railway with Proper Name

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

Redundant list. Fails WP:NLIST. Wareon (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I seen this list in the article Sampoorna Kranti Express. I thought someone has planned to make the list but not have time. So, I yesterday started making the list. I think a page is needed as these trains have a big history and need a list and yes, The list will be long but not useless. People of India need this kind of list. I also travelled in some of this trains and have seen a big influence of these trains in there places where they stops or starts or ends.
Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 11:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where is another list of this kind Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates List of trains run by Indian RailwaysRegentsPark (comment) 14:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for a redirect, unlikely search term. Weird list criteria that wouldn't meet NLIST if we are presuming the title to be a qualifyer, violation of NOTDB otherwise. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2033 in rail transport

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

A single event which may well happen in a different year eventually. WP:CRYSTAL Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, Lists, and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Crystal and WP:TOOSOON Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, lists with one entry are completely pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One event, likely TOOSOON for it to be listed anyway. The list wouldn't be helpful as it stands. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Notaoffensivename (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete case of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone numbers in Melilla

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

Wikipedia is not a database. This can just be merged into the article for Melilla, why is disconnected information about the city its own page? Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 16:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Telephone numbers in Spain, and do the same with Telephone numbers in Ceuta and Telephone numbers in the Canary Islands, baffling why these would be separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it resembles a colony, and the numbering system may not be identical to that of mainland Spain. It would be helpful if the article were to include the number ranges assigned to landlines, mobile numbers (broken down by carrier if necessary), short numbers such as 112 and other codes that are more or less standardized in the European Union, and carrier selection codes such as 10288 for AT&T in the United States. Removing this article would leave a red link in Telephone numbers in Africa. I wonder whether the Morocco telephone numbering system has reserved a range of domestic prefixes or dialling codes to reach Melilla from Morocco, even if they are not in use. The numbering system of the People's Republic of China, for example, reserves a range of numbers for Taiwan, and Republic of Ireland numbering system used to allow numbers in Northern Ireland to be called with a different prefix rather than the United Kingdom's country code of 44. LeapTorchGear (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "may not be identical to that of mainland Spain" mean??? Do you have any evidence of that or just speculation??? You know Melilla is an integral part of Spain, not a colony? Even if they were different, Telephone numbers in Spain is perfectly capable of describing whatever you're spouting about. A redirect would not leave a red link. — Reywas92^Talk 13:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of violence against women in Spain

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

Per WP:SALAT, this is far too general a topic to make a manageable list. (List of incidents of violence against women is also up for Afd.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NLIST. Nearly all of the listed incidents are non-notable. Wareon (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of violence against women

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

This is a nearly useless list article because it fails to cover even a fraction of Wikipedia's total coverage which itself is only a fraction of total real-world incidents. This job is better done by Wikipedia's category system than a list. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Lists. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, specifically for being far, far, far too broad. I'm also going to nominate List of incidents of violence against women in Spain for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Too broad. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless as there are no inclusion criteria. -Roxy the dog 07:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being too broad and better served as a Category. While dynamic lists that can't be reasonably completed can still be good, this is about as hard to complete as a list of individual penguins, and also about as useful. Scope needs to be more limited to be useful as a list. Creating lists for instances of specific types of violence could still be useful, as this is a subject I certainly don't want to suppress information on. Ike Lek (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 operators

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

Article had only two citations, both of which were unreliable sources per WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Only reason I didn't remove the second citation was because I didn't spot it. So in essence, this list article, which contains details such as numbers of aircraft in operation or formerly in operation, is completely unsourced, with the only assistance for the reader being to go to the linked articles - which doesn't count as sourcing per WP:CIRCULAR Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you also have Airfleets [1], and at least SimpleFlying and BusinessInsider blog posts showing which airlines operate the plane: [2] [3] So it's not really a trivial/NLIST failing topic if we can agree on a proper source. There may be more in my old books in storage as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Airfleets has been in multiple RSNs over the years where it's also been listed as unreliable, as it's basically the same as Planespotters. Simple Flying is a deprecated source, but Business Insider would work. If we can find sources, then obviously there's no problem keeping the article... unfortunately, often it takes an AfD for such action to take place!

And for the record, yes I did make a quick search for sources myself... but as I'm not really an aviation-inclined person, I couldn't find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three books directly on the planes published at various times, but I can't access their insides. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're wanting to source current lists of operators and numbers though we probably need more recent sources Danners430 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very few operators still fly this plane. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Flying is NOT a reliable source WP:SIMPLEFLYING Protoeus (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement (i.e. reliable references) is never a reason to delete an article. Fully referencing the list is something that should be achievable. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes opening an AfD is the only way to get an article improved... Like I said above, I've done a search for sources, but haven't been able to find anything substantial. Danners430 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution songs

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

Pure listcruft, unlikely that any of the content is supported by reliable sources. Repeatedly BLARed and reverted, so I think AfD is warranted. Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Video games, Popular culture, and Lists. Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Lots of sources, but almost all user-generated or non-reliable. No encyclopedic. value. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Dance Dance Revolution Jumpytoo Talk 18:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution as this fails WP:NOTDATABASE. Jumpytoo Talk 18:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. I don't see what a redirect would solve, since a full list of songs is outside the scope of the main DDR article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not a believable redirect term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone's reasonings here. From a quick overview of the page, it definitely looks like a database or directory of almost every song in the game. Wikipedia is not either of those. It would probably be better if it were moved to some other wiki. Redirecting would not be ideal because there is no similar section there. 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: What I meant is that redirecting the page to Dance Dance Revolution would be unideal because that's the page without a similar list section. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDB. Azuredivay (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article which has been on Wikipedia since 2007/2008 at the earliest, was under AFD quite time ago, and the reasons for that, was there was not enough sources for the list material. Due to the haphazard discussion, the consensus was for the time being to redirect the article to the parent franchise, and not to delete. After a work in progress cleanup, sources were added, and there is still some dispute for some reason, despite the fact the article all things considered is structured well and to the point, and similiar articles under Wiki content, are allowed. Sources are from the developers themselves, and from reputable video game publication sites. The main consensus and argument for deletion, is this article is 'Non Encyclopedic' when there are several other similar articles on Wiki. There are articles for Guitar Hero, Pump It Up, Rock Band, so why does DDR, which is the forefront of all music/rhythm games, not allowed to have a concise and complete list for the music? There are even (in my own objective opinion, rather confusing, puzzling and redundant) articles, which has sources from the same networks which hasn't been contested or disputed which list songs released only in 2009 Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2009 video games) (possibly a ghost article), and songs released after 2013. Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2013–present). So why are these confusing, and rather u-turn/dismissive articles okay, but this general article which lists everything in a simple form in the franchise, not okay? I don't understand. For those reasons I gave above, I feel the article should definitely remain. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of utility cooperatives

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

Stated by @Otr500:, most entries didn’t have articles, with many that do having questionable notability. He cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

As for me, this article’s sourcing is barren, with sources that are serving no purpose beyond directing to their respective company’s website. With this article having inadequate sourcing, I believe it should be merged into Category:Utility cooperatives. Roast (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: At present, almost every entry has an article, and most of them are decent enough in the sample I checked. Not sure whether this list is the way to go, though. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am inclined to agree with Guerreroast, as a secondary option on a merge, as an WP:ATD. The embedded US list has no references. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are nearly 3,000 electric distribution companies in the US that include "investor-owned, publicly owned, and cooperatives". According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, there are over 900 Cooperatives. Listing 75 does nothing as a table of contents or navigation aid. Two sources cover Japan, and two cover California water companies.

An issue is a lack of reliable and independent sources overall, on the article, and none in the US section, indicating a lack of notability|. WP:NLIST states Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.

On a "spot-check:

A&N Electric Cooperative: The first on the list has six references. Three of the sources are dead (404 Page Not Found) links, which include the two non-primary sources. While this possibly can be corrected, it is a red flag.
Allegheny Electric Cooperative: Two primary sources only.
Carroll Electric Cooperative: Four sources, one non-primary.
Central Texas Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
Concho Valley Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
Fayette Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative: YEA! 11 sources.
Minnkota Power Cooperative: No sources, two links in the "External links" section,
North Arkansas Electric Cooperative: One "official" (primary) source improperly listed as an "External link".
Oliver-Mercer Electric Cooperative: No source. Google Books link in the "External links" section.
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative: Four sources.
West Florida Electric Cooperative: Four sources.

It appears that a lot of the individual articles are not notable, but certainly not part of a list. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Einzbern

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

~~Easily a 'useless' disambiguation page for a surname that no real world person (possibly) has. Propose that it be merged/redirect to Characters of Fate/stay night.~~

KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn because I clearly cannot read; this is AFD, was meant to post this on RFD.**

KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RfD would not be the right venue for this discussion, as this is a set index and not a redirect. (Set indexes in turn are not disambiguation pages either, despite the nominator's statement.) The nominator may actually be referring to RM as they have started a requested move discussion, but as Characters of Fate/stay night is an extant article that the nominations propose merging or redirecting to—i.e., a move of this page is not being proposed—that isn't the right process either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's previous argument before they withdrew. A merge or redirect would be unhelpful due to its vague nature. Closing this discussion now would count as a withdrawal supervote and not be allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Zxcvbnm. There are only three characters listed here, none of which have their own article. One of them isn't even included at the main character list, so a redirect doesn't seem useful in this case. MidnightMayhem 04:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of Fate/stay night#Illyasviel von Einzbern; Illya is a main character of several TV shows and movies; others are supporting. Easy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I missed that this is a list of FSN characters, I was refering to the wider Fate universe / media franchise (ex. Illya is the main of Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya). A better target then would be List of Fate/Grand Order characters, as that game contains all of these characters, although it is incomplete and not mentioned there. In that case, really, the best outcome would be to redirect this to Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya, as the main character of that show has a surname of Einzbern (Illya); she is much more popular than the other two mentioned in the current disambig/set index, and if they all had articles, that would be the primary meaning (unless we would have an article about the fictional family). But GNG-wise, only Illya might be notable, perhaps, the other stuff is pure fancruft niche plot summary stuff. So, revising my vote, redirect to Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya. Ping @Wcquidditch@Zxcvbnm so you can consider my argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Deletion is also valid, but looking for WP:ATD. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series

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

Again, this is just a very poorly refenced WP:ALLPLOT, this time there is even no list of apperances to match it. Fails WP:NLIST. WP:ATD-R, if we want to be generous, would be the main Aubrey–Maturin series, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with cleanup template and move to a new title like List of characters in Aubrey-Maturin and use WP:RS, this isn't a dynamic list; also, wasn't the source material famously frozen in time? Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . 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) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a fan article consisting almost wholly of unsourced plot elements, contrary to WP:ALLPLOT. Even if much can be sourced to reliable primary sources (the novels themselves), that would still not avoid the requirements of WP:ALLPLOT. There is little critical analyis, but what there is amounts to WP:OR, with no attempt to provide secondary reliable sources to support any character analysis. Very little here is salvageable, and no purpose would be served by keeping it and merely adding a tag calling for reliable sources to be added. I note that several of the characters already have their own articles, but there's no sourced material here worth merging. If anyone knows of independent sources that critically discuss any of the other major characters, they could consider creating new character-specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Changed vote - see below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this article helpful because it is a long series of novels about a set of characters with connected stories. It is helpful to a person who reads the series, and it provides a series view of these characters. At the time most text was written, the sources used were the novels themselves. If the lack of other sources is the true objection, perhaps there should be a request for more references both to the novels and any reviews or other sources. Per the revision history, I wrote more text than any other editor, which I had not realized. I listened to audio books so was not providing page numbers, but book and chapter at best. I see this as an extension or companion article to the Aubrey–Maturin series article. The period of history in which the novels are set was long and complex and the story twining through 21 novels is also long and complex. Perhaps another edit to this article would be links from the article on each novel to this article under debate, to specific characters. The descriptions here are series descriptions, not appropriate for any one novel’s article. I can slightly understand someone confusing it with fan text — for this series, there are links to the fan-type articles and tables. This article is descriptions of characters as they developed through the many years of the setting. I do hope the article is not deleted. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSHELPFUL is not a good article for deletion discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth noting that the “fan web pages” for this series list every single minor or major character in the novel series, a very long list, where this article includes the major characters and those characters who “turn the plot” meaning they move the story in a new direction. Those characters are generally real historical people, moving the plot in tune with history of that era. I find these novels and these characters worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because of the high quality of the writing by O’Brien and the exposition of an important era of history, both the major lenghthy war and the age of scientific discovery. I think this is the only time I have disagreed with editor @MichaelMaggs:, yet I do respect the points he makes and want to respect the changes he feels will improve the article. I think that some of the better reviews of specific novels might provide reliable sources to add to this article that focusses on characters rather than on each novel. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources present in the article that covers the subject of recurring characters in the book series, and none have been presented in this AFD. Searches are also not yielding any significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The primary characters both have independent articles, and the main article on the series has a "Characters" section that can be expanded if sourced information is found, but there is nothing justifying a separate, largely unsourced collection of minor characters. Neither WP:ITSHELPFUL or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are valid arguments for keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. When we focus on policy-based reasons, we just don't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I also don't really see evidence that sources could exist. I'm open to an WP:ATD if someone wants to build that case. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am sympathetic to the points Prairieplant makes above, and I would like to apologise to for being overly quick to dismiss this as merely a 'fan article'. I have changed my vote and have struck my initial comments. Although "being a useful article" is not in itself a valid argument to keep, per WP:ITSHELPFUL, it may encourage editors to put in that bit of extra effort to avoid losing valuable content. In order to overcome WP:ALLPLOT, we'll need external sources. I'm aware of the following, which I hope should be enough:

At least eight of the characters are based on real people: reliable sources include Tolstoy and King (biographies) and Brown (currently listed as a general source at the end of the article)
Around 12 characters appear in the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, and real world links can be added to the film, and to the respective actors
Many more appear in the various BBC radio adaptations of Master and Commander, The Mauritius Command, Desolation Island, HMS Surprise and The Fortune of War. Again, real world links can be added.
Almost all the characters have separate entries in Brown; these generally summarise the characters' actions throughout the series, but without additional critical analysis. The presence of these recurring characters in this scholarly companion volume (which is by no means an in-universe catalogue) should be enough to pass WP:LISTN. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that in this type of list, not all entries need third party sources, and it's fine for them to be sourced to the primary work itself. Compare List of Dilbert characters which in spite of citing no external sources whatsoever is specifically noted in the guideline WP:CSC as being a valid example of a stand-alone list.

I will commit to adding the sources I've mentoned if others feel that would be a worthwhile thing to do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after three weeks of AfD, the article cites no third-party sources and contains not a word that is not plot summary. WP:NOTPLOT mandates deletion. Sandstein 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein, you didn't address the suggestions I made in my comment directly above yours. I’m willing to add the specific sources I listed, but I’d appreciate an indication as to whether they have potential to help. I’d prefer not to invest several hours compiling and formatting them only to find, after the fact, that editors always felt that such sources could never, even in principle, save the article. I’d welcome your thoughts. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the characters appear in adaptations (which are primary sources and not independent) does not make them (as fictional characters) notable. Nor does the fact that some are also historical figures. In that case, it is the historical figures themselves who are (often) notable, not their literary portrayals. For those, we would need multiple independent reliable sources covering this particular set of fictional(ized) characters. So far we have only "The Patrick O'Brian Muster Book" by one Mr. Brown, which I don't know whether it is independent from the author or editor of the books it covers, and which at any rate is only one source. Which means that I'm not convinced of the article topic's notability. Even if the topic were notable, the current content is all plot summary and must therefore be deleted. Sandstein 18:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not rely grasp this reliance on NotPlot as an objection. Yes, I read the text to which it links. @Sandstein:, will you be happy only if we find masters and PhD theses about these characters in this series of novels? The Muster book by Brown mentioned above is independent of the author of the novels, by the way. If @MichaelMaggs: is willing to put in the effort to enrich commentary in a form to fit this article, I say encourage him. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC) my[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon characters

AfDs for this article:

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

So to clarify here; this list is discussing the human characters in this series. The fictional species are covered at a variety of lists, most notably List of Pokémon. With that out of the way, let me elaborate.

WP:LISTN defines that the notability of lists is inherently dependent on the notability of the group; i.e, a list of human characters in this series needs to have sources discussing human characters as a whole. From my WP:BEFORE search, the only sources covering this as a group are WP:VALNET sources, which do not confer notability per our guidelines. Most hits for things like "Pokémon characters" are discussing the fictional species of Pokémon, not the human characters in the series, and the few that do discuss humans are either not discussing them as a group, discussing only one particular character (Such as Team Rocket), or are VALNET sources. Every Books or Scholar hit I could find was discussing how the Pokémon species have been interpreted, not any of the human characters. The only real potential hit I found is Newsweek discussing LGBT characters [[4]], but even that is just a summary of stuff existing more than an actual analysis.

Compared to the other human character list for this series (List of Pokémon anime characters), which at least has the potential for a WP:SIZESPLIT given how long the anime's gone for with such a large recurring supporting cast, the Pokémon games comparatively have fewer recurring characters. The bulk of the characters, and indeed the bulk on this list, largely only appear in one game, and are relegated to cameos after their debut. While there are a select few recurring entities like Professor Oak or Cynthia (Pokémon), these few characters are exceptions more than the norm. The vast bulk of these characters could easily be redirected to their debut game, with the few recurring characters easily able to be slotted into a smaller, more condensed character list at Pokémon (video game series) that I'd be willing to work on myself. This list should easily be able to slot into that article without causing bloat once all of the one off characters are redirected back to their original articles, which should prevent UNDUE concerns.

In brief, while the Pokémon species are notable, this separate list for other recurring human characters does not have the same group discussion, nor does it have a valid SIZESPLIT spinout rationale. This list could easily be condensed to slot into another article, and thus overall is unnecessary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Lists, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect/incorporate characters to their relevant video game articles per nom. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major franchise, several characters (human) are notable, LISN is easily met, I don't see a problem here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and LWG. I think I see the logic here. The games never had a 'cast' of characters like one would expect in a conventional narrative game and as such there's not a lot of depth of coverage one would expect for WP:NLIST. Sure, there's a small number of independently notable characters, but in terms of reception and coverage relating to in-game characters, their depth leans much more heavily on how they are portrayed in the anime. There are conventions around the character archetypes of professor, rival, and Elite Four characters from game to game, but:

1. not that many characters actually are notable by the looks of it, and those that are have been subsumed into archetypes rather than specific characters (i.e. Rivals)
2. there aren't really that many sources comparing, discussing or evaluating the broader casts of characters;
3. the characters really aren't that in-depth - for one, Red, a character whose appearance has attracted much secondary coverage, infamously has no dialogue at all in the game; and concurrently
4. this is all fairly simple stuff that can be embedded in a character list as a subsection to the plots of each game article, and the archetypes in the series article.

As the nominator notes, few if any characters really appear consistently across the iterations of the games, with a handful of notable exceptions. So this does feel like an instance where WP:NLIST is arguably not satisfied. What would change my mind on this is if sources are found showing that there is indeed some coverage on the characters as a class. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LISN- "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". I suppose work could be done to redirect, merge, or change this is to something else as the nominator proposed, but that also seems unnecessary and the simplest thing to do is just leave it as is. Rhino131 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is kept, it 100% needs a rename. Something like "List of human characters in Pokemon" or something. The current name is entirely counterintuitive - Pikachus are "characters" even if they're not human. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second this, most of them are called Pokemon trainers? IgelRM (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if this ends up kept, since most of the hits I found for Pokémon characters were very much not about this particular grouping, and it can conflict with those looking for the species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few articles on Pokemon characters/trainers in Category:Pokémon_characters. A list with a few relevant trainers might be better than many individual articles. IgelRM (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM the same problems still stand; even if it were to be determined that these characters would be better off not as individual articles, every single character article for a trainer (Bar Team Rocket and Cynthia (Pokémon)) only appeared in one game, or are notable as anime characters, not game characters (Like Ash Ketchum, Brock (Pokémon), Misty (Pokémon)). Given they relate to one game, we'd still have the same problem of these characters only being part of one major entry in a wider list, and we're still not passing LISTN since there's still no group coverage. No matter how it's sliced it's either just recreating the current problem or just creating an additional one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- @Pokelego999 "Notable as anime characters, not game characters": I did not look at List of Pokémon anime characters before; that list is rather similar also listing Team Rocket. I would consider that part of the AFD as well and would also consider the merge option. IgelRM (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the franchise main article to preserve its history, and then disperse usable information per Pokelego999. LISTN isn't feasible here because it's pulling in too many directions: while one could argue *some* of the character are notable, even some of the trainers to refine that downward, it's hard to argue that there's enough to cover the masses here. Additionally the argument that there's too much work involved to take it down is a terrible one. If anything I think Poke's suggestion has merit. There's also and lastly the problem that a list this monstrous doesn't really inform the reader of anything; it's a dumping ground that has gotten so massive it's next to impossible to find pertinent information, negating its whole purpose even in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this does fullfil WP:LISTN and has navigational value for the notable ones and can be a home for brief commentary on non-notable ones in accordance with WP:ATD-M. It is also a good overview on the topic from the viewpoint of the franchise. If there is a size problem, more detailed information can be deferred to individual series, and this being the place where one can see what's out there and where. No objection to a renaming in case someone can come up with a more clear, fitting title. Daranios (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the other delete !votes - the problem with saying it is a list of "Pokemon characters" is that one asks - which Pokemon game or show exactly? The title is too vague, and it is better off done on a game-by-game basis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of Pokémon is enough. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak convert to a disambiguation page housing List of Pokémon, List of Pokémon anime characters, and whatever else can be salvaged/scraped up. Otherwise, there's always Bulbapedia. (Might refine my decision based on further objections/support.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinions are all over the map, there is no consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pokémon (video game series): Merge a truncated list of the most significant characters to the game series as nom has suggested. A hatnote can be added to the section where the title will redirect to assist readers who may be looking for other relevant lists. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just rename it List of Pokémon video game series recurring characters It says in the introduction "This is a list of recurring characters in the Pokémon video game series." Popular video game series always have these. Category:Lists of video game characters It is different than List of Pokémon anime characters. Some characters have their own individual articles, such as Cynthia (Pokémon), Lillie (Pokémon), Nessa (Pokémon), Nemona, Larry (Pokémon), Misty (Pokémon), and Brock (Pokémon), and others are in the group articles of Team Rocket and List of Pokémon rivals. Dream Focus 23:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't address the problem with the name. Pikachu is still a recurring character, yet would not fall within the scope of the current article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Pokémon (video game series) and other articles per nom. Lists about Pokémon#Characters could be another possible target for a redirect. --Mika1h (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Piotrus and User:Dream Focus. I.e. I agree it could be moved to a better title. Christian75 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support move to List of Pokémon video game series recurring characters. It needs work, but several characters are notable and have their own articles, and a better title would more clearly indicate what the list covers. MidnightMayhem 04:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states and territories by median wage and mean wage

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

Page is nearly empty. There is a better article for this: List of U.S. states and territories by income. Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like it had a table before. diff The table was removed due to a lack of verification. – The Grid (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Since the tables all used US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, their removal appears to have been in error. I will go ahead and restore them so that we can accurately review this article. Rublamb (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. It was not an error. See my comment below. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before it removal, the text indicated that the tables used statistics from the US Bureau of Labor. This is an allowable way to cite a source. Thus, the deletion was in error. Regardless, the content now has adequate, reliable sources. Rublamb (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. See my reply to you farther down. The 2 sources you added do not apply. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per the WP:HEYMANN, as the article now has content that makes sense and is sourced. Rublamb (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely needs maintenance to bring it up to 2025. --Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Burroughs'10 and Rublamb: I think you all are missing the point. List of U.S. states and territories by income is a much better, and longer article with more tables. I removed the poorly referenced median wage map and table (that I created) from that article too. The CNBC reference for them mentions US Bureau of Labor Statistics in passing but it doesn't link to the exact source, nor mention whether it is for full-time workers, or both full and part-time workers. I assume it is both, because as someone pointed out on the talk page there is a firm BLS source showing a much higher median full-time wage for the US as a whole. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, than there are two options that are preferable an AfD, according to WP:DELETE. One is to MERGE the two articles, making sure that the content here is included or updated in the other article. (See WP:ATD-M). The other option is to tag this as needing to be updated. (see WP:ATD-T) The content is not that out of date, since U.S. Census data always runs at least a year behind its release date. For example, the 2023 data cited here was published in 2024. As it stands, your nomination for lack on content has been addressed. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. The map and tables you added back do not meet WP:Verify, as I said in my edit summaries, and on the talk page, and here. The 2 references you added do not apply to the map or the tables you added back. Household median income is not personal median income. And the other link did not have any state data. Could you please revert your additions. Then I can merge the empty page easier via WP:ATD-T as you suggested, and then redirect the page. And please change your vote to delete. So that when I redirect the page there will likely be no objections. Otherwise I may have to merge bad tables/map, only to have to delete them (again) from the better article. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I added a source for median income to a table about median income, I don't understand your objection. I think you need to wait to see the outcome of the AfD. WP:DELETE specifies that merging cannot be used as a way to delete content or to delete an article. Rublamb (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb. I previously wrote: "Household median income is not personal median income." The 2023 annual median wage table is for personal, not household, median wage. Do you know the difference?

The link you just added for the 2022 annual mean wage table does not have data matching the table. Look up Alabama for example in your reference. The data does not match the table data. None of the references for the 2022 table support WP:Verify for that table. WP:Verify says: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." That is why I removed that table previously. It still does not have a reliable citation. Why are you adding back unverified tables? That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. I could remove it and not violate any rules. And consensus at the article talk page would be required to add it back.

But I will leave the unverified map and tables in the article until the AFD finishes. Maybe someone will find references for the 2022 or 2023 table that actually verifies the data in the table. That would be great. The map I created is based on the 2023 table. So the map is not verified too.

I see in your latest article edits that you removed the original 2023 median wage table, and substituted a ~~different 2023~~ 2025 median wage table. ~~It also has inadequate references since~~ it does not link to its US Census Bureau source. See discussion:

Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by median wage and mean wage.

But why are you doing all this work in this article? It would be much better to add the table to the talk page of List of U.S. states and territories by income for discussion about finding the US Census Bureau reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article, as per WP:EDITATAFD, adding data that was more recent, based on date of publication. Merging is a great option but the article has to survive the AfD first. Rublamb (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Changing my response from keep to merge to either Household income in the United States and/or List of U.S. states and territories by income. After working the the data, it is clear these three articles are all based on the same government sources. There is no compelling reason for this article to exist as a third presentation of the same information, and these other two article are vastly superior, both in text and tables. Rublamb (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of U.S. states and territories by income, 100% overlap in scope. -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(If the data tables are redundant or outdated, it's fine to drop them and merge only peripheral maps and links and whatnot. Or nothing at all if they are already present, but the idea is that after the comparison and sync-up is done, there should be a redirect from here to there.) -- Beland (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Completely agreed. Smoothhenry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outline of philosophy. It's hard to see if NLIST is met. There are plenty of sources about philosophy, but NLIST would require sources about discrete philosophies considered as a full group or set. There are perhaps some useful sources about world philosophies but I think it is more natural to interpret these sources as being about philosophy considered from a global perspective. There are also other sources considering groups of philosophies but they are generally restricted to a particular theme (e.g. legal philosophies). The concept of philosophies is probably to vague to have a useful list but Outline of philosophy will have everything that would be useful to readers. Shapeyness (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete or Redirect - agree with previous discussions about delete/redirect Asteramellus (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion criteria is obvious, no need to spell it out. Category:Philosophical theories exist. The list would be more useful if instead of just listing things, it had a column listing what year it was first known to exist, and a summary of what it is. Dream Focus 01:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in lieu of the non-existent Category:Philosophies. It may partially intersect the outline and glossary articles, but is quite distinct from them. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 24 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]

Question - we have list articles for a reason. Does this article meet WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a preamble to the article. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 18:37, 23 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]

The National Telecommunications Commission is the authority in the Philippines when it comes to TV and radio stations (among other things). Now, if their publications qualify for WP:RS that depends... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:51, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete, Redirect and Merger into TV5 Network. Trishie042512 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 (formerly ABC-5) is the only major television network and the sole free-to-air television network in the Philippines that are possibly Delete and/or Redirect, and Merge summary/overview into TV5 Network as most of the stations does not have Wikipedia pages and even the sources do not talk the TV stations as a whole that WP:NLIST fails, per CNMall41. Since 2016, resulting in all stations have a full-power relay/translator of DWET after 3 decades of duplicative. Only on the National Telecommunications Commission TV stations and frequencies as of December 2024. Trishie042512 (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more thoughts on Sammi's WP:IAR argument, 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., and if there is any reasonable place for a redirect/merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:56, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deleting this article would have to set a precedent for other "List of hospitals in (country)" articles, the bulk of which likely have very wide differences in their sourcing and structure. Compare Kenya and Japan in this instance. I don't think deleting the article is the best solution, so if I was voting, I would say keep the article. But I think there would need to be a larger discussion surrounding these lists to determine whether a bulk deletion is needed if the request passes. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of these should probably be deleted. There are worse sourced ones like List of hospitals in Ivory Coast. Most of these could be handled by categories. Metallurgist (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates. killer bee  15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a merge seems, strange, how would that work? And do note that all hospitals that are on that list which have an article will still exist in Category:Hospitals in the United Arab Emirates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging should work because some of these hospitals are notable and have their own articles. Mentioning them on Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates would be fine. killer bee  17:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 24 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]
I think the appropriate decision would have been to significantly trim the list instead of spinning it out. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 13 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]
Mentions alone aren't enough, the sources need to be significantly in-depth on the characters specifically for notability. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So have additional sources been looked for? After doing a quick search I found this source by THEM reviews (reliable per WP:A&M/ORS). This can be built up into a section regarding character reviews. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but this is really a review of the anime and not characters specifically. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it also goes into detail about the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 22 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]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:SPLIT, and WP:HEY. The list was in bad shape at the time of the AfD nom and is still not great, but the article has been improved by KnowledgeKid87 since the nomination. The subject itself (characters from Uma Musume) is notable, so it is just a question of how best to cover it, and merging this back into the game article would yield readability and undue concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the edits to the article since nomination and both delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm@Vrxces@Go D. Usopp, would you mind taking another look at the list? It has been edited significantly since you !voted. Toadspike [Talk] 19:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NLIST. A majority of sources are used to reference the casting of voice actors, with only a single citation used to document a character in the list. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cite notability as the main issue, yet I found at least one source which discusses the characters. With all due respect, did you follow through with WP:DILIGENCE before nominating this article for deletion? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article; I don't see the notability for the list and the character description are still really original research. IgelRM (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character descriptions can be fixed. I see notability for the list as the cast and descriptions for the characters are covered in WP:RS. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a characters list for a notable franchise is per se notable, as it is not a separate topic, but a separate article split for readability and size purposes. No objection to further trimming and sourcing, but as pointed out above, those are SURMOUNTABLE problems. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is duplicate of your comment above and WP does not have a guideline like that. IgelRM (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this might close as a No consensus or Keep but I'm relisting to give editors a chance to also consider Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Knowledgekid87 and their improvement of the article. The THEM Review should be enough for reception a bit, as should the ANN ones (don't have time to assess them right now tho). I also found several academic sources which, similar to the keep precedent with a similar XFD but to a lesser extent, may help the article: an in-depth analysis of the umamusume species; an academic case study for the contractions of characters' names in the context of linguistics; (to a lesser extent) official ethic rules on derivative works for the characters (10-12); and some citation-only stuff (while the sources aren't linked, the title indicates there's coverage) such as an article on "memorial services" for umamusume and two articles on at least one of the character's (multiple characters are implied in at least one of them, but the lack of plural indicators in Japanese makes it hard to tell) impact on the region around Hidaka, Hokkaido ([5][6]). ミラP@Miraclepine 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the linked FGO AFD are WP:VALNET sources, so I don't think this is any kind of precedent. I have not looked at the scholarly sources, but generally I think this type of notability cannot be established solely with those. IgelRM (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Valnet sources aren't academic sources, hence why I did not refer to them in the context of my !vote. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on who writes the article, as credentials help establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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