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 recurring Orange Is the New Black characters

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

This article has been mostly unsourced since its creation eight years ago. Some of it is cited to Twitter and Instagram, plus three sources that tell us that one of the characters is inspired by Martha Stewart. This fails WP:GNG (and is a fork of the equally badly sourced article List of Orange Is the New Black characters). Jontesta (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records

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

Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs remixed by Hybrid

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

Unsourced article which doesn't appear to meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not notable. desmay (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like WP:NOTCATALOG

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Islam, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don’t need to bring this to AfD. See WP:BLAR. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you do due to it being contested/likely to contested. An AfD outcome to redirect for example would be a binding consensus.

As to the nom itself, I support a redirect to the Azerbaijan article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mosques in Azerbaijan, per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree that you should redirected the article. If that failed then you could AfD. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by southernmost point

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

Original research list that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST I am also nominating the the related North, East, and West articles.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do not seem to be any sources cited for the co-ordinate locations in any of the articles. However, I think the article itself should not be deleted. The concept of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of a country or region is definitely a notable subject, and the concept of compiling and comparing different extreme points in a list should also therefore be notable. Are not some of these locations/points only notable because they are the extreme points of that location? Are you going to delete Extreme points of Africa and other articles at the same time? Spiralwidget (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument applies exactly to that one, so yes? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep all. I agree with Spiralwidget that extremes of latitude and longitude are notable, and therefore listworthy. BD2412 T 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Assuming that the sourcing can be coughed up, this could just as well exist as a single article with the four extreme points of each country, sortable by each column (NESW). It would not surprise me to learn that there is already a list of countries which contains the information, or for that matter a list of countries by some geographical property to which these data could be added (e.g. a list ranked by area). Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers comics characters

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

FANCRUFT list that doesn't include a single source indicating notability of these characters, let alone indicating a necessity for having a whole list focusing on them; in contrast to a similar page for the film characters. Most sections consist solely of brief summaries of these comic-exclusive characters, if they include any summaries at all. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to tell the creator of the page that you nominated it. That would be User:JIP who made the page back in 17:32, 9 April 2005‎. Dream Focus 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.cbr.com/best-comic-transformers-ranked/ that gives coverage to ten of them found only in the comics. Any reviews for this comics or notable arcs would've mentioned some notable characters such as Rung. Dream Focus 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Of these, none are non-Transformer characters, and only five appear in the Marvel Comics titles in the first place. However, the source could be of some use at the main article about the Marvel Comics title. JIP | Talk 08:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Storm Prediction Center days by outlook risk level

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH. There's no sources for the deaths and linking deaths to particular outlook days in a catalog like this is not something any reliable sources do. Also fails WP:LISTCRIT due to lack of an unambiguous criterion for including data points. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --2600:4808:353:7B01:6554:AF94:4384:BF19 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE. As with sources per WP:RS; the one that covers it all are WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant markets to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting to retain consistency with other FWWC articles. The separate list is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information simply for the sake of collecting that information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per Jkudlick. Svartner (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another attack on a perfectly fine article about a previously broadcasted event. The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters noted that keep results are fine for individual years. This isn't listcruft, which is functionally WP:IDLI. This isn't a database, either, and it is very discriminate - I'm tired of people not understanding that premise at deletion discussions. While poorly sourced, it is very easy to find reliable sources which cover this like [1] [2] . SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this an attack? Everything I do is an attack, right? Do note that I have no plans to nominate the 2023 list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about you specifically. Lots of broadcast information has been up at AfD recently. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting: As it stands, this standalone article fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary coverage covering the grouping. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. See [3]. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zubeen Garg live performances

AfDs for this article:

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

While the addition of subsequent live performances since the deleted version keeps this from being a G4, Discographymen essentially created the same article that was deleted. The factors that led to the deletion do not appear to have changed as there's no indication the performances were notable. While I would not be opposed to a redirect (protected, to stop re-creation) I am opposed to a merge as this information isn't encyclopedic in addition to not being notable. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, and India. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Give me some time to reconstruct the article with better citations and removing social media links. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Discographymen (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not even consider merge to Zubeen_Garg#Discography because of how poorly sourced the page is for all performances. Most of the sources are Twitter and blogs from a quick Overlook. Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His live performances are not so many, nor so notable as of yet that it will require a separate article. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques

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

Merge request at Talk:Lists of mosques#Merge proposal that did not seek to merge any content. Their rationale implies that the content is not worthy of being merged, so it is within the scope of AfD.

List of mosques serves no useful purpose. It's clearly too vague to ever be a viable list article per WP:SALAT (e.g. there's no List of church buildings either, as far as I can see). This is a function accomplished by Category:Mosques. The list has no proper inclusion criteria: the lead states "some of the more famous mosques", but that's obviously unhelpful, there's little about the current list that suggests the additions are being limited to "famous" mosques, and even if we tried to enforce such a criteria it would inevitably be an unclear POV mess; anything can be "famous" from a certain POV, and "notable" would by definition include every Wikipedia mosque article (which, again, is what categories are for). There are of course almost no sources in that article either, despite the many additional claims inserted into the list. All of this makes it incompatible with the guidelines outlined at WP:STANDALONE. The only useful version of this would be an article that links to more precise lists of mosques. This already exists here at Lists of mosques (notwithstanding some needed improvements). Two articles with such similar titles are also likely to cause confusion and they already look like WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other. Therefore, List of mosques should simply redirect here.
— User:R Prazeres 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the above. Indeed I only proposed as merge because I thought a blank-and-redirect would fall under that type of proposal, but deleting (with or without redirect) addresses the problem too. R Prazeres (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This can survive, and quite possibly should, as a list-of-lists, assuming someone wants to make sub-lists, say for per-nation mosque lists, which can in turn be lists of per-province mosque lists. Absent that, a comprehensive list in one file doesn't seem to be terribly useful or maintainable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original merge proposal copied above.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, easy to miss! R Prazeres (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got confused by the similar titles but while lists of mosques is a navigational list this one isn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most spurious nominations I've ever seen, to be honest. Category:Lists of religious building lists even has a container category for these sorts of pages, and the See Also section functions similarly to other pages in that category. This is really a speedy keep in my book - deleting this is completely non-sensical. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of mosques. Upon further review, this article and that article are functional duplicates. I did not read the entirety of the nomination statement, which I thought was making an incorrect argument that mosques should be categorised instead, and that we were deleting the master article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It seems pretty uncontroversial that the two articles should simply be merged using Lists of mosques as the title, which appears has been largely done already. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Lists of mosques per the above. I would have supported a straight redirect if the Lists article didn't list some individual mosques as well, but there indeed are individual mosques listed on the Lists article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the most suitable option. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history

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

The article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT as the topic itself should not be an encyclopedic article. A deletion discussion for a similar article has already passed a year ago and its conclusions are very good. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article title doesn't make sense and the content is likely not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. Some of the relevant content can be merged into LSU Tigers football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:GNG, is more "fan-related" details than content for this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina

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

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Rename List of film festivals in Kosovo and remove really non-notable events and add other festivals held in Kosovo. As for the fact that none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city...hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about. Not opposed to a plain keep (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/kosovo/articles/the-5-best-festivals-in-kosovo ; https://prishtinainsight.com/kosovo-film-festivals-to-go-ahead-despite-covid-19/ ; https://www.google.com/search?q=Film+festivals+in+Pristina+-wikipedia&sca_esv=ee8b71f1efd28755&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=sRBoZt6IM-Dbi-gP5I-D-Aw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiepfbFltOGAxXg7QIHHeTHAM8Q8tMDegQIBBAE&biw=871&bih=496&dpr=2 etc.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, unless it's just a rewording of your rationale, in which case, yeah, sure, I heard you the first time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to States of Guernsey#History. Not much to Merge but might be of interest Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral firsts in Guernsey

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No room for "firsts" because it is trivial. Shankargb (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of conflicts in Canada

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

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

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)

List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present

List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)

List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918

List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present

Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present

NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WHA broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment so, if this list is up for deletion, why not include all the other broadcaster lists from other leagues and other sports? Examples List of current National Hockey League broadcasters, List of Edmonton Oilers broadcasters, Historical NHL over-the-air television broadcasters, List of historical Major League Baseball television broadcasters, and List of historical NBA over-the-air television broadcasters. There are lots of other similar list artices. ~~I'm leaning towards keep for this article unless it can be made clear why this article should be deleted and the others kept.~~ Masterhatch (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - After I posted that comment, I had looked at SpacedFarmers edit history and saw that he is in fact nominating multiple similar articles and that he wasn't just picking on some obscure WHA article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjects fails WP:LISTN. Individual parts might be sourced, but as a whole they fail notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to meet the criteria set by WP:NLIST as the broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The World Hockey Association like the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association in professional basketball, is an essential part of the overall history of the National Hockey League. Like was the case with the prior ABA–NBA merger, four of the WHA's franchises were absorbed into the NHL. Television and radio media coverage are for better or worse, an essential part of a sports league's history. The WHA may or may not, have sped up NHL's expansion process. As the story goes, NHL showed little to no interest in any expansion until it was informed in 1965 that without expansion, it would not receive a network television deal. So fearing the loss of television revenues and the emergence of a rival league in the WHA, the NHL expanded to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. This Sports Illustrated article from June 1973 notes that the WHA in contrast to the NHL's then recent problems, could be have stronger bargaining power in negotiating television contracts. So all in all, how exactly is it merely and little more than "listcruft" to discuss the WHA's media history? It's noted in the article that CBS aired some of the WHA's games for a brief while during the early 1970s. Meanwhile, this book excerpt, briefly discusses whether or not the New England (later Hartford) Whalers games were blacked out WKBG whenever the Boston Bruins of the NHL were at home. Also, noteworthy is that the Michigan Stags where unable to secure a television deal (except for a one-off broadcast on WXON Channel 20 in 1974). Here's an article from The New York Times from 1975 on the Michigan Stags' troubles: W.H.A. Outlook Brighter Despite Stags’ Collapse BornonJune8 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is exactly my question as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reformat per BornonJune8's comment and the subsequent discussion. Perhaps draftify, even? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BornonJune8's comments. Certainly this article could be better. But I think this is a pass of WP:LISTN, and is simply not feasible to include as a section in the WHA article itself. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[4]] and [[5]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Radio personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], and [[13]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure the nom did a proper WP:BEFORE search because from what I'm seeing this seems to pass WP:NLIST based on some searching. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players

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

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer, I see your remarks as a Keep vote, no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I specifically didn't !vote keep because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a delete. The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint George S.C. players

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

No evidence this list of self-selected players meets the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero notability, a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the top football team in Ethiopia, and is well sourced. I fail to see why WP:LISTN doesn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I tend to agree with SportingFlyer. I'm not sure how this can be see has having "zero notability" if it is the best football team in Ethiopia. It is also universally discussed "as a group or set" by nature, working it into the threshold of WP:NLIST. I think this falls under WP:BIAS to a large degree, as well. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club was founded in 1935 and such a list would purport to include players from the club's entire existence. There is a huge WP:V barrier that I don't see this list overcoming. How to verify which players played for Saint George SC, how many matches (i.e. who surpassed the 50-match mark, 100, 250 etc.) and when? To me that would seem equally impossible as maintaining and updating the list. Finally, deleting it removes nothing of value, as a category does the job much better. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments to keep are fairly weak: are there independent sources for the list entries? Maybe we can come to a consensus by remedying this apparent lack of independent coverage (or by determining that there is not significant independent coverage).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lists of people, including players of sports teams, must demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Upon review, the article lacks sufficient citations from such sources to establish the notability of individual players. While Saint George S.C. is a notable club, the roster of its players as presented does not meet the threshold for inclusion as per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability. Therefore, based on the current state of the article and the adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, deletion is warranted unless substantial, reliable sources are provided to establish the significance of the players listed. This action ensures the integrity and reliability of information presented on Wikipedia, maintaining standards of verifiability and notability across all articles.Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true - lists do not need to demonstrate the notability of individual items. Furthermore there's plenty of sources in the article such as [14] which clearly shows by listing all of the Ugandans which have played for the club that the information is available, probably in Amharic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket

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

T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. – Hilst [talk] 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is another factor:

Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.

There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as it pains me to say, having spent plenty of time maintaining it, I do agree with this one. There are so many matches now that the list will become unmanageable. I don't think we should restrict to FM (Test playing) nations as that would then be an incomplete, caveated list, in which two centuries in the same match might be treated differently. What's more, I would suggest that we also looks at List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket and List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket for the same reasons (those are probably worse, I have stopped regularly working on those some time ago). Bs1jac (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are, alas too many featured lists we will be saying goodbye too :( Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bs1jac: One solution could be to split the "Highest individual score" section of the List of Twenty20 International records into the top 5 or 10 scores by full member batsman and the top 5 or 10 scores by associate batsman. The records on that page are already dominated by lower-level associates. AA (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That doesn't apply to this discussion, but regardless a century is a century so it would be difficult to justify having a records page that only included selected entries. As someone mentioned here, if say Bangladesh play a lower-level associate such as Maldives in a qualifier tournament and both teams had a player score a century, we would only be including the one scored by the Bangladesh player (against a weaker bowling unit) and not the one scored against them. Bs1jac (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is true. One of many reasons associates outside the ODI playing associates should never have been given T20I status. But something beyond our control! AA (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. T20I hundred used to be prestigious/rare and still is but only when it is scored by a player of Test playing nation. Filtering this list with Test playing nation criteria would be WP:OR, so unfortunately we cannot maintain this list of T20I hundreds for all teams. Instead, we should encourage editors to create separate pages by team (like List of Australian Twenty20 International cricket centurions) if they are discussed by independent references as a set/group (which I think would be possible for countries like Australia, India, England, etc.) 188.29.200.166 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g 🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.

What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.

"Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.

"What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.

"8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.

"10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.

"Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.

"9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.

Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.

Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2

Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.

Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015

Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.

Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf

Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image_stitching#Software: until better sourcing is found. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much work has been done here but it is simply not encyclopaedic enough. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Proposed deletions