THC Science

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 French films of 2026

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

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

Two WP:TOOSOON lists of entirely redlinked films by presumed future release dates, referenced entirely to subscriber-locked directory entries in an internal industry "films in the production pipeline" database rather than reliable sources. To be fair, the United States does already have lists for both of these years, so I can't argue that we never let lists of films exist this far into the future -- but the US lists comprise films that (a) already have Wikipedia articles to link to under WP:NFF provisions, and (b) already have WP:GNG-worthy sources present to support the presumed release dates, neither of which are on offer here.
These can both be recreated in 2025, 2026 or 2027 when there's reliable sourcing to support listing bluelinked films, but we don't already need either of them now if they're only using primary sources to support red links. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could these be merged with the 2025 article to a broader List of upcoming French films? Presumably some of the "TBA" entries on List of French films of 2025 will slip to 2026. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Corsica destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company ever without any attempt to summarise. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to a full list of all the destinations that Air Corsica has ever served and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is Aeroroutes, an industry-press blog run by an enthusiast that re-posts company schedule data "sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website", the other of which is an article from TradeArabia News Service based on a company press-release. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic. In fact the data on this page is largely unsourced but I assume obtained from Air Corsica's website, which is realistically the only real source for this information. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and France. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germania destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:V.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.

This is a WP:V failure because none of these sources are from July 2018, but this is par for the course for these articles. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Germany. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NordStar destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is largely a listing of where this airline does not regularly fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated" or "seasonal". What little encyclopaedic content there may be here is already summarised at the parent article.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. Either the information is taken directly from the company website, or (as in the ATO.ru and om1.ru sources) they are based on company press-releases. Links to Euronews, the BBC, and New York Times are included but these do not mention the airline at all - instead they are used to support the WP:OR conclusion that various NordStar flights are terminated.

There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

Finally this fails WP:V because whilst this is supposedly a listing of destinations served as of February 2021, none of the sources are from that date - they are all years before or years after it. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Russia. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is a listing of where this airline does not fly to. As is stated in the second line "all flights are terminated". Even if it weren't, UIA is a charter airline, so when it was flying it would have gone anywhere you would have paid them to fly to. In as much as this page has any encyclopaedic content at all, it is already described at the main page about the airline so this is a duplication.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or reports of press-releases, or aggregators like Routesonline that re-post brief company statements. None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ukraine International Airlines for the time being Per WP:CRYSTAL to retain the page history (which meets N/GNG as far as source counts) until the war ends and it (or a future forerunner) flies again, but also, why the nom didn't choose to add a simple 'cities served before 22 February 2022' disclaimer to the article rather than pursuing wholesale deletion is also confusing. AfD is a last-resort venue and we have another example where the talk page is all but tumbleweeds with no discussion (and the main page since 2021) before it was posted here. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I also think this fails under WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and that a list of destinations for an airline that will fly literally anywhere you pay them to fly is pointless. WP:GNG is not the relevant standard because this is an article entirely about the services of a company and so WP:NCORP applies, but even if it were WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, of which there zero cited here - everything is either garbage sources like airlineroutes.com, the company website, or reportage based entirely on a press-release from the company. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and duplicating content that, to the extent that it is encyclopaedic, is already in the main article about the airline.

Taking the last of these first, the main article already gives a summary of the destinations it served. A complete and exhaustive listing is not needed.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. FlightRadar24 simply relays airline-provided information (as the page states: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers"). There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cyprus. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyprus Airways - there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone page, but where the airline flew is indeed encyclopedic information. The WP:NOTs cited here really twist the purpose - none of the prongs under WP:NOTCATALOG apply here. WP:NCORP doesn't apply here because it's not an article about a corporation. The nomination also fails to understand what "indiscriminate" means - this is a very discriminate list. However the sourcing isn't there for a stand-alone page, so we can't keep the information at its current location. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is a very discriminate list" - where was any discrimination applied at all here? In what way is this not cover by ""Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"? WP:NCORP literally states in its very first line that "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service".

I don't understand this combative attitude when you straight up admit that this is yet another airline destination list page that shouldn't exist. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup when you could just say that it's not properly sourced enough for a stand-alone article. And a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate - there is a finite number of entries for a related group of items. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate" - this isn't a list of every destination served on the last operating day? This includes destinations that clearly weren't being served on that day since they are "seasonal"? The list is anyway explicitly of destinations the airline might have flown to in November 2014 some months before it folded?

WP:NOT has something like 30 headings and I've mentioned two here and given the reasons for why they are mentioned, so I don't think "throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup" is fair.

If you list every entry in a list regardless of relevance, or whether they were even being flown to at the time in question (were "seasonal" destinations being served in November?) then I don't see where discrimination is being applied. Encyclopaedias are supposed to summarise, not be complete listings of trivia. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be their final scheduled timetable. That's discriminate encyclopedic information as it provides a scope of where the airline flew to before it folded, which is indeed relevant information about airlines. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how taking the content of a document like this and transposing it on to Wikipedia is discriminate. This schedule was any way just a future plan - one they did not actually fulfil - and so excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand your definition of "discriminate." SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination requires making choices about what to include and what not to include. This is literally taking every service a company ever offered and including it in a list. To be discriminate, only the main services of a company need be included - the classic "this airline flies to X countries" covers it. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of DAT destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that operates charter flights and as such they will fly whereever you are willing to pay them enough to fly to.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or Airline Routes Maps (an agent) or AeroRoutes (a blog/industry press re-posting brief company statements). None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

A simple statement that DAT operates charter and cargo flights across Europe in the main article is sufficient to cover this, nothing from this article needs to be merged. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Denmark. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Dresden

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

This article cites no sources and contains almost no prose. It claims to be about "Music in Dresden", but it contains only three timelines of classical music composers who allegedly "spent a significant amount of time in the German city of Dresden". It makes no mention of any other kind of music that may have existed at any time in that city. I don't think there is any hope for a reliably sourced version of this article that is anything more than a list of trivia. If there is such a hope, this article is probably not useful as a base for creating it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Lists, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SELCRIT, there is no clear selection criteria (having spent "a significant amount of time in Dresden" seems quite arbitrary). Without any sources to support it, it is a case of WP:TNT. The list could be recreated if an editor wants to define precise verifiable criteria for inclusion. In this state, it should not stay on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, unclear how these people are relate to Dresden, there is no references that the subject "music in Dresden" was discussed in sources, i.e., the subject is of dubious encyclopedicity. - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martinair Cargo destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, , WP:NCORP, and what I'm going to call the "you're joking, right?" test.

Let's take the last of those first: this is a cargo airline. Realistically they're going to fly where ever you pay enough money to send things to. Moreover this is overwhelmingly a list of places where this airline does not fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated". You're joking, right?

The WP:NOT failure is very clear: this is an exhaustive listing of company services and so fails under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It's also a listing of all services this company offered and so is indiscriminate information under WP:IINFO. I could go on with the WP:NOT failures (original research is a big one BTW) but it would be tiresome.

The WP:NCORP failures are also easily described: there is no evidence at all that a listing of all of the services offered by a cargo company as of April 2020 (or ever, actually) is a notable topic that should be covered in an encyclopaedia. None of the sources in the article meet WP:ORGIND because they all are ultimately sourced solely to the company and are coverage in local/industry press. Taking them one-by-one:

The MartinAir website (which actually doesn't have the information it is used to cite...)
The Best Travelstore website - a travel agent.
A 404 link to a page on the Hong Kong Department of Trade and Commerce.
A 404 link to a page on the website of the Journal of Commerce.

Even as a WP:SPLITLIST this page has to have stand-along notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT which this clearly does not. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Cargo routes get substantially less interest than passenger routes so I don't think this needs a standalone article or one structured with this kind of table, but Martinair#Destinations should still provide information about the airline's services. However per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations, this does not violates NOT: it is a narrow, discriminate topic without inappropriate detail; it is not "A resource for conducting business" and so the straightforward listing is not a forbidden catalogue; the fact that it's poorly sourced does not make it original research – no one did their own unverifiable analysis of anything. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage does not depend on whether a topic is popular or not. Which services that are sourced in the article do you think should be merged? The vast majority of the services that the airline actually operates are not sourced at all, I don't see any reliably-sourced content here that can be merged that is not already in the main article about the airline.

Is it verifiable that the services were operated and then "Terminated"? No. Linking to this source and saying that the destinations are now "terminated" is pure OR. As is saying that the services are being operated based on a bare link to this page - you can't see that ANY of these services are actually being run based on that page.

In what way is listing every destination the airline ever flew to discriminate? FOARP (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. It would be good to have the current destinations in the parent article.Reywas92, if you can pull this off from reliable and current sources: just copy and paste what is left of the destinations. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Air Charter destinations

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

Clear failure of WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common-sense.

Starting with common-sense first: this is, as the name of the airline clearly states, a charter airline - it will fly to whereever you charter it to fly to so long as you pay enough. The destinations it serves are literally the whole world.

Moving on to WP:NOT, this is clearly an exhaustive list of company services and so is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of all the services that this airline possible offered at some point, which makes it indiscriminate information excluded under WP:IINFO. I could also throw in WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE, and a bunch of other headings that this fails under.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by European Air Charter are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. Only one source is cited in the article - the company website - and in reality any other source is going to be industry/local press coverage based on press-reports and company statements.

Even if this is considered a WP:SPLITLIST of the European Air Charter page, it still has to meet the requirements for a stand-alone page per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which this page manifestly does not. And again, a charter airline does not have fixed destinations so what is the point of this listing anyway? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Bulgaria. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking a previous nomination involving this page:

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of permanent Ambisonic playback systems

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

Wikipedia is not a directory this article contains very few internal links to notable articles, all that is included is external links, which has become a means of promotion. There is nothing encyclopedic about this article that is currently worth saving VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears promotional and has no sources. Ternera (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common sense.

Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!

WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.

This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.

This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and Malta. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list of services possibly provided at some point in time, per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to keep a list.... of places... that Air Malta... doesn't fly to...? FOARP (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. ^[1]). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a huge mess indeed. Wikipedia is not a directory. Vorann Gencov (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.

Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).

WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.

That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:

The Vietnam Airlines website
A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
The Vietnam Airlines website
An industry-press article based on a company press-release
A local news story based on a company press-release
A link to the Berlin airport website saying that Tegel airport has been shut down - the conclusion that Vietnam airlines ever flew here is not supported and basically OR
An announcement about future plans in industry press, with comments from the CEO of Munich airport who are obviously also not independent of the airline as they are a business-partner of theirs
An announcement in government-controlled press about flights to India, since Vietnam Airlines is state-owned and managed by a board appointed by the government this is not independent
Announcements from the company about future plans relayed via Aeroroutes, which is a blog/industry press, and also not significant coverage since it so short
Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
A short Reuters piece about flights to Moscow being suspended in 2022 based on an announcement in Vietnamese state-owned press - not significant coverage of the topic of the destinations since it is so short and is anyway not reliably and independently sourced. Additionally this does not support the statement that flights are terminated now in 2024 so this is OR.
Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
A Condé Nast travel-magazine article based on a statement from the Vietnam Airlines CEO. Whilst other sources are also quoted in the article, all of these sources ultimately track back to Vietnam Airlines - the Airline Geeks article (industry press/blog) is sourced to a company press release, the Vietnam+ article is sourced to statements by the CEO, the Twitter source is from Vietnam Airlines Twitter account. There is no independent reporting here.

As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Vietnam. FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the numerous WP:NOT violations listed by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're making things up:
- WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
- WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
- This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
- It's not an advertisement and it's patently ridiculous to call this promotional. It's perfectly appropriate to provide a straightforward list of a company's services. Is it a promotional advertisement to list a movie studio's films, a gaming company's products, a brand's flavors, or a train's routes?
- This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but this and this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
- This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
- This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
- This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
- NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
- You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.

I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.

NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.

Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.

The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".

I don't get how you can repeatedly admit that this is badly-sourced, not produce any examples of independent, 3rd-party coverage to fix that (Aviationweek is industry press and their article is based on a press-release, the VN Express article is also based on a press-release, and anyway only mentions the airline briefly), and then still conclude that the article should be kept. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.

If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.

Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".

Some other sources include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russia

AfDs for this article:

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

Hopelessly indiscriminate/random/subjective collection: here says they found 380 thousand different surnames in Russia, of which core of 14 thousand surnames are used by 70% of the population... And with a misleading title: it lists only east slavic surnames, while there are plethora non-slavic people in Russia from the times of Russian Empire and Soviet Union: not a single surname ending in -shvili and only one ending in -dze, no one ending in -yan/-ian i.e., Georgian surnames and Armenian surnames are thoroughly not represented. In is poorly maintained: I removed a couple obviously hoax (OK, mayby typos by nonslavic editors; AGF to them). Even slavic surnames are far from being complete: I immediately failed to find the surnames of my favorite writers: Ilf, Strugatsky, Nabokov Akunin, Zoshchenko, Bulychev, as well as other well known surnames Schmidt/Shmidt, Goldfarb, no Zeitlin/Tseitlin/Tseytlin, good thing there is Abramovich :-) ; there are Tkachenko and Tkachyov, but no Tkachuk. For some reason there are both Pelevin and Pelyovin listed, but there are hundreds of other e/yo spelling variants missing ..... And so on, and so for. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: might be related, at least in spirit, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan, another grand undertaking regarding names in this region. Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 16 July 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 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lists of this size are far too unwieldy for WP:LISTPURP-NAV to to be a good argument for keeping. Although the list topic itself undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST, I think this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and so should be deleted. BrigadierG (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current article violates the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy as it purports, through implication, a listing of all surnames of people living in Russia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't do anything more than Category:Russian-language surnames except add a lot of redlinks (and give Russian spellings). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to wiktionary, which does maintain these types of lists (although with the shortcomings you mention). (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Much too unwieldy and indiscriminate, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a random collection of surnames found within Russia, and there are several alternatives as mentioned above, such as Wikt and categories. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to make a single assumption why this exists. WP:NOTCATALOG. Vorann Gencov (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerian states by literacy rate

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm the information in this, or to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I found [16] which has very different literacy stats. There is no content other than the data-table; Education in Nigeria might be a place to cover literacy in Nigeria more broadly. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list is deleted from the internet. It had a good source with UNESCO. Can someone find in Archives maybe?--Afus199620 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator’s reason.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warner Bros. films (1970–1979)

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming all information, and showing it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You've gotten nothing but keep votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979), so why the hell are you nominating this too with the same rationale? And why are you only nominating one subpage in a set of eleven? This is a perfectly valid split of Lists of Warner Bros. films, a navigational and informational list that passes NLIST. The lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Warner Bros. Pictures, including Warner Bros: The Making of an American Movie Studio, Warner Bros: Hollywood's Ultimate Backlot, You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is an obvious split of Lists of Warner Bros. films an obviously notable topic as a set, as has been noted (by me but also by other users) in various recent very similar nominations by the same nominator...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no good reason not to. CheekyUnicorn (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source is used here and we've got a category called Category:Warner Bros. films and other 'films by year' and 'films by year by genre' cats already; this needs proper sources. "Because it's neat" and "why the hell are you nominating this" are not proper rationales or votes!; I remind others never to attack a nominator just because you disagree with them. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article. References could easily be added but are they really needed for a blue-linked list ? There is a classic Clive Hirschorn book on Warner Brothers " The Warner Bros Story" that includes year summaries for the studio's output and secondary reviews of the individual films that covers this period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs and Reywas92. Boleyn, this is disruptive. hinnk (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator says they couldn't find sources confirming the information. Did you think to click on the articles linked to? List articles don't have to reference everything, you can find references for the information in the articles they link to. Dream Focus 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979)

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

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously a split of Lists of Paramount Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, echoing Mushy Yank. Unclear why you are nominating this one in particular of the decade lists. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of the Paramount Studio, see Mountain of Dreams: The Golden Years of Paramount Pictures, The Paramount Story, Engulfed: The Death of Paramount Pictures and the Birth of Corporate Hollywood, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Paramount Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article and in view of the reliable book sources identified by Toughpigs in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for lists. Dream Focus 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999)

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

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a helpful reference and serves a navigational purpose. The list's notability is only a minor concern. Lists of films by major studios, such as Columbia Pictures, document cultural history and provide insight into cinematic trends of a specific era. These lists do not need additional sources to meet the notability guidelines. They are notable because they include famous films, and the studio is famous.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Columbia Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear why these lists are getting nominated, or why the OP keeps nominating more without waiting for consensus. Obviously Columbia Pictures and its films are notable, see Columbia Pictures: A Century of Hollywood Motion Picture Magic and Columbia Pictures: Portrait of a Studio. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Columbia Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Any article within reason can be nominated for deletion at any time. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, nominating just one page in what's clearly a set is bad form, and if they want future deletions to succeed, maybe they should get one to work before nominating several at once. This is organized by release date and is far more useful than massive alphabetical categories. I don't think 'studio stan' editors are an issue with straightforward list like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for list. Dream Focus 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Universal Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Universal Pictures, see City of Dreams: The Making and Remaking of Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures: A Panoramic History in Words, Pictures, and Filmographies, The Cochrane Brothers And the Making of Universal Pictures, The Universal Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Universal Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Any article within reason can be nominated for deletion at any time. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, nominating just one page in what's clearly a set is bad form, and if they want future deletions to succeed, maybe they should get one to work before nominating several at once. This is organized by release date and is far more useful than massive alphabetical categories. I don't think 'studio stan' editors are an issue with straightforward list like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid split from main article. Are references really needed for a blue-linked list? If so there is the book "The Universal Story" by Clive Hirschorn which includes yearly summaries of the studio's output and secondary reviews of the films that includes this time period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for list. Dream Focus 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Z slang

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

This seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.

There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([17] [18]), LA Times ([19] [20], WaPo ([21] [22]), NYP ([23]), Politico ([24]), USA Today ([25]), Newsweek ([26]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([27]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article has some WP:OR issues and could use some work, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [28].) Some1 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having an article just on "Generation Z Slang", but this list format is not what that article should look like. A well-sourced prose article (using some of the quality sources in the current article) would be fine, but the article at present is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is aimed against. Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, but a poorly-sourced exhaustive list with little actual explanatory prose should not be the way we cover the topic. AviationFreak💬 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So be bold and fix it, including moving the article to Generation Z slang if necessary. But requesting the deletion of the entire article because you disagree with the format and structure, even though you agree that Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, is not the way to go. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editing a page at that scale (i.e., an entire rewrite and page move) is beyond what WP:BOLD is getting at. I do not believe a "List of Generation Z Slang" as an article has a place on Wikipedia, so I've requested its deletion. A prose article on the overall topic of Generation Z slang seems reasonable, but I believe that's an entirely separate article. Surely a better alternative to a BOLD edit of that scale would be a discussion like the one we're having now, given the possibility of the WP:BRD cycle undoing a time-consuming page rewrite. AviationFreak💬 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that List of ethnic slurs has a list format similar to List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the clearly-defined inclusion criteria on the talk page, quality sourcing, and lack of OR. Additionally, that article has long been a part of Wikipedia, and when it went through a number of deletion discussions, the main focus was on the offensiveness of the content, not its format or status in functioning as a dictionary. Other stuff exists. AviationFreak💬 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and maybe Move to List of 21st century youth slang or something similar. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the subject's notability. Could also Compromise, if y'all want, by removing the non linked words and keeping the notable ones to have a more specific inclusion criteria. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria can be discussed on the article's talk page. This AfD isn't the place for that. Some1 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the topic does take at least some precedence since Aviation did say that the problem was that the list mostly includes "indiscriminate" words sourced to "barebones Dictionary.com entries." The newly proposed inclusion criteria would fix this concern. Aviation even noted the list of ethnic slurs' clear inclusion criteria when you brought it up. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can propose your idea on the article's talk page Talk:List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however very highly rework in order to make the page more formal and encyclopedic. A clear case of the unprofessional manner of the page are the examples. The example for "brainrot" is "Bro, the skibidi toilet gyatt ohio sigma kai cenat rizzler memes are literal brainrot..." which is not very professional nor encyclopedic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Third Watch characters

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

Unsourced WP:OR with no indication of notability. Not enough coverage by reliable sources according to WP:BEFORE. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teen Titans Go! characters

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

WP:OR without independent sources. Much of this is a retread of List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters and we do not need two non-notable lists. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teen Titans Go!. The article in its current form has too many entries that are unnecessary, the only inline references are to the show itself, and the external links don't discuss any characters other than the main ones. Merging the most important characters to the show page (with a note about character crossover) should be fine.
The Teen Titans Go! article says Sporting a different animation style, Teen Titans Go! serves as a comedic standalone spin-off with little to no continuity to the original Teen Titans series (although some references are included as comedic fan service) or any other media in the DC Comics franchise., so a merge to List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters would excessively disrupt that article. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a WP:GNG fail, but summarizing this at the main article is a fine WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Teen Titans Go! in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and the fact that the bios for the exclusive characters have to go somewhere on this website. The other list mentioned would not be able to be merged with this one anyway since both shows are in their own continuity like some of the shows in the franchises associated with SpongeBob SquarePants, The Fairly OddParents, and The Loud House to name some examples. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional concepts from a book series. Much of this is WP:OR in both content and in the choices of what to cover. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to His Dark Materials#Setting. It might be able to be spun off into a Universe of His Dark Materials article, but currently it seems heavily loaded with plot and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got pinged as a major contributor to the article, though truth to tell my role has been largely copyediting and 'pruning'. This list article summarises all the 'worlds' and distinct locations in the (massive) His Dark Materials two trilogies of books and a number of spin-offs. All the info is - or should be - in the coverage of each of those books, and is no more WP:OR or indiscriminate than a list of characters from a major book, TV or film series, of which we host many. WP in my opinion is highly inconsistent in its coverage of created works. Almost every plot summary of almost every film or book is, in reality, intrinsically WP:OR. Choosing what plot devices to record and how to record them, an editor makes creative judgements. Our justification to ourselves is that the "work itself is the source". According to strict interpretation of P&G, this article probably has no place on WP, but IMHO has value as collating info recorded elsewhere on the site.Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article needs a lot of work, I believe there is significant coverage in secondary sources to allow just that, like this Lonely Planet article, this Radio Times article, two paragraphs in Routledge Handbook of the Tourist Experience, p. 83-84, the chapter "'Lyra's Odyssey' In Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy" in Once and Future Antiquities in Science Fiction and Fantasy, two chapters in Serialization in Literature Across Media and Markets, pages in Space and Place in Children’s Literature, 1789 to the Present (mostly but not exclusively on Oxford), and others. Now the article's topic may not be the main topic in all those source, but that's specifically not required by WP:SIGCOV. But those sources do have a lot to say on the locations, as a group and individually, plot summary, commentary on the function of the locations in the story, commentary on their realization on film, inspirations, intertextuality, etc. No objection against a renaming into Universe of His Dark Materials, or rather Multiverse of His Dark Materials, but I don't find that neccessary either. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' sources. No objection to rename if that's the consensus, and obviously a merger into #Setting is preferable to outright deletion if this is not retained as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional British and Irish universities

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

This subject does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional locations. Another list that is WP:OR in both content and in the synthesis of "fictional X that are also Y and Z." Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this is an obvious delete, and there is no List of fictional universities and colleges to merge to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand to cover the subject generally. BD2412 T 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of fictional universities — per BD2412 and Robminchin. I believe fictional universities as a group enjoy sufficient coverage; a move makes sense. As it stands, the current article fails WP:LISTN. GhostOfNoMeme 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my preference to Move. This should be at List of fictional universities. I don't agree with merging to List of fictional schools — "school" in British English does not refer to universities, so WP:COMMONALITY applies. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to List of fictional universities. COI: I created this list, inspired by a conversation at an Academic Archers conference where the University of Felpersham was mentioned and we wondered what other fictional (British) universities existed. I initially drafted it as "List of fictional English universities" but broadened it to UK and Ireland, because that's the area whose literature, film/tv and higher education I'm familiar with. I can see good reasons for broadening the scope to be international, but it will require some careful attention to scope and standards of list items. A column for "Country" will be needed. Entries for many non-UK&I institutions will need to be added, and the borderline of what is a university as opposed to a college will need to be defined, allowing for problems of ENGVAR. In the list at Lists of fictional locations, this list is shown as a subdivision of "List of schools", while in British English "schools" are what comes before Further Education or Higher Education (or in some cases are divisions of a university, or entities such as the London School of Economics!) The existing List of fictional schools includes some universities (and is almost entirely unsourced, except for the schools of magic).

I'm disappointed to see this list described as WP:OR, as every list item and statement is sourced. I would be sorry to see that level of care and sourcing diluted in the move to internationalise the list, but am also fearful that if it is simply moved it will be criticised as failing to represent the whole world, tagged as {{Globalise}}. Perhaps that is OK, as a nudge to editors to join in expanding its coverage. I wouldn't call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, as it has very clear inclusion criteria and aims for completeness. At present its title is quite clear about its scope, and it has aimed to be comprehensive within that (ie it includes every sourced fictional UK&Ireland university which has been discovered by me or other contributors, plus a couple of culturally-British extragalactic ones).

There are certainly other sources listing non-UK&I fictional universities: 21 US colleges here, 25 here (largely overlapping), 30 "fictional schools" here (mostly high schools, couple of elementary schools, but a few universities or colleges), a top ten here which includes both UK and US institutions, while this 2015 account of Borchester was to be the first of a week of "Great fictional universities" but I can't find the others. Those sources are all dominated by recent films and tv: the existing list is strong on literature, from Thomas Hardy onwards. Perhaps another column for "medium" (book/play/tv/radio/film) would be useful too.

There may well be lists of fictional universities in American (and other) novels. Some of the titles in Campus novel#Examples may yield list entries (eg I find that Pnin is set in Waindell College), and some of the sources at Campus novel#Bibliography may be fruitful. (Though the first one turns out only to be a book review, of the useful-sounding The American College Novel: an annotated bibliography). Though of course fictional universities are not confined to Campus Novels (Felpersham is from a radio series).

TLDR: To sum up: yes, by all means expand it to international coverage but with care so that it maintains its thorough sourcing and careful construction (eg sortkeys in column 1); a column for "country" and perhaps one for "medium" would be useful additions.

Sorry to be longwinded here, but I do, naturally, feel somewhat protective of this list as its creator and a major contributor. PamD 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional schools. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "school" to refer to a tertiary institution is an Americanism, so this violates WP:COMMONALITY. And that's a much poorer article in any case. Non-British Isles universities on that list should be moved to this article after renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point regarding WP:COMMONALITY. I agree with a move to List of fictional universities and a transfer of the universities from List of fictional schools. The latter article should make this separation clear. GhostOfNoMeme 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to List of fictional universities~~ which I am pretty sure is a topic fullfilling WP:LISTN, and expand by other contries, as PamD has pointed to. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of fictional universities afterwards, to preserve what we have here as basis for an article with expanded scope which I expect fullfills WP:LISTN just fine. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and then accommodate the changes made by PamD with generalized scope, I guess, would be fine for me as a way to go through with this. Whatever the technicalities, I believe there is a way to go to put the suggestions of the majority to preserve and adapt the content to a renamed list as suggested by a majority here into practice. That said, after another look and given the differences in educational systems, the split by country seems much less a synthesis than I originally thought, as most easily accessible English secondary sources seem to feature US-American and/or British universities. It will be interesting if some from other countries will be found in the end. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A closer can't close a discussion as a Move. If this is your choice, please make an argument to Keep and then a Move can be discussed after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of taken as read! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If it's going to be expanded, it should happen in the near future. Otherwise, it's too over-specific to remain there, as I don't think that particular subset of fictional universities passes WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a possible new version of the main list, ready for international expansion, at User:PamD/new-unis. Two new columns, and no longer any need to explain the Britishness of the three extraterrestrial institutions. Any comments, from editors suggesting keep-and-move? PamD 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting more interesting. Thanks for the draft, it looks good to me! It just needed an introduction, which I have tried to start, and some new phrasing of inclusion criterea. And if that's the way to go, one needed to solve the question how to get the histories together. Presumably drafty this list, and then replace the content by PamD's draft, which is based on the list here. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think draftifying would be a useful step. If the closer of this AfD decides to Keep the list, then the next step would be to move it to the suggested new title, alter the wording of the lead appropriately, and amend the main list. I think the move would be uncontroversial, and it could be done immediately. My draft new version of the main table is a suggestion: I would be happy to contribute to the internationalisation of the list by pasting the revised code over the existing table.

While I don't want to be guilty of WP:OWNing this article, I am the person most familiar with its existing content and structure (and will keep an eye on it in future to maintain the standards of sortability and sourcing). PamD 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, whatever works to get there. As above, it's all just technicalities, I believe all keep and move !votes want to have the same end results at this point. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I have notified a relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#List of fictional British and Irish universities: I believe this is Appropriate notification rather than Canvassing. PamD 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these could be consolidated a bit, perhaps in 10 ly segments rather than 5, but this seems like a valid navigational and informational list; most of the stars have their own articles and there's good data and sourcing in the tables, so this is not just a directory. It's a key component of Lists of stars. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced info, focusing on what is most relevant to the denizens of Planet Earth rather than on every solar object show these list articles are clearly not a directory of everything in the universe. I can think of better ways to organize the information, but that's clearly an editorial decision rather than a NOT issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listing all the star systems in one list would be too long, so this is a logical way to divide them. Valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fits WP:LISTPURP and is a useful navigational source for nearby stars and star systems. Procyon117 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all that is what encyclopedias are for, still would like if the segments were by 10 ly Teixant (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All these lists are very useful, provide navigation into pages and have valuable information, hence satisfy the purpose of a list. Don't see any violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY here, it would be a violation if we were listing all stars up to thousands of light-years e.g. List of star systems within 5,000–5,500 light-years, which is not the case.

21 Andromedae (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the number of stars on each page should increase roughly with the cube of the distance, so the later lists are clearly incomplete. A cut-off mark for building these lists is lacking; the local neighborhood of the Sun is variously defined from 12 pc out to 2 kpc, so these could extend our quite a ways. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:snow. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as they don't inherently fall into WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ships & Space_(Edits) 22:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sibling lists for other decades, so the concept was clearly "split long list up into multiple sublists for convenience". If The Robe was from an earlier decade, thus, then it would simply belong in another decade's list. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles involving Sweden

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

Very cluttered, and serves no real purpose, there is a category for battles involving Sweden for a reason. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gvssy (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping Gvssy. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, it was my mistake, I thought I was nominating the article. Gvssy (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of battles by geographic location #Sweden - I disagree with the OP's reasoning, as the page is useful and could be expanded to include useful information, similar to pages like List of battles involving Georgia (country). However, there isn't much to gain by having an entirely separate page devoted to it, as there aren't enough battles to do so, so a redirect is preferable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment

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

Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Geo Entertainment: As the latter article is too short to justify splitting its content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Standard split from the network. Redirect and merge is possible but those who wish it should imv verify what's redirecting to the list to avoid undue deletions if double redirects are created. Having spent too much time commenting and voting on similar Afds I will not make any further comments here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out the coverage where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources?" --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity; Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan

contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or this list. or this kind of pages. Or this kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we are right back to NEWSORGINIDA. I only checked the first reference and didn't waste my time going deeper. [https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/589695-top-drama-serials-on-geo-entertainment-this-year bylined by "Instep Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I don't think there's anything rude here. Just be careful when using GUNREL sources to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.

But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable, is that not correct? ~~(on a page you yourself created!!!)~~? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page ~~you created~~(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....

But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about this page? Are you in cahoots with them? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The News itself is RS, but as @CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Still waiting for your apologies. And your point was "GUNREL", as you repeat below; so, no, it's not GUNREL, that's what I thought. QED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source dramaspice.net you cited is indeed GUNREL. Oh, why on earth should I apologize to you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.

As for why you should have apologised, I'm not the one who will explain that to you, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Not only has a history of disregarding NEWSORGINDIA in AfD's but also consistently relying on GUNREL sources to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nasty and undue comment.....so inappropriate. Hope you will apologise.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.

And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional keep~~. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):

Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".

Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
"Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.

Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:

Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]

Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a source for a historian, because that seems to be a political science journal and the first Google hit for Bratislav Teinović is Institut za političke studije. We would absolutely not be serving the average English reader well if we try to serve them this in lieu of actual secondary sources relevant to the topic. --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal describes itself as "a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, which publishes original scientific manuscripts on topics from the humanities and social sciences field".^[1] The reviewers that year included historians Darko Gavrilović, Davor Pauković, Nebojša Kuzmanović, Vassilis Petsinis and Wolfgang Rohrbach.^[2] The website you cited for Teinović is not his primary affiliation, which is the Muzej Republike Srpske (according to that page and elsewhere). An understandable mistake. He received degrees in history from B.A. in 2001 through Ph.D. in 2019 at the University of Banja Luka.^[3] But this is just one of a number of sources stating as much. Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw he's also associated with a museum - but that's not reassuring at all, because some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. The issue here should still be fairly obvious - this person has 75 mentions on Google Scholar, where someone like Sima Ćirković has 1560. I've linked the policy on original research twice already, here's now a link to WP:RS for more information on identifying reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a counterclaim from Ćirković, please do provide it, and I will introduce that into the article in parallel. Even then, one would have to cite more than one source to show something is against consensus. Citation counts are a poor metric for determining what is and is not a "RS", especially in a field of study as small as the wartime politics of the Bosnia Eyalet in the early 19th century. Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.

The worst that could be levied against Teinović is not providing reasoning for what to call the Bosnia Eyalet ("Bosnia") and the new Serbian state ("Serbia"), but the only work I know of offhand that discusses extensively the English terminology for the Serbian state during the First Serbian Uprising is only available in a few libraries currently unavailable to me, so I couldn't quote from it. Although there are many scholarly sources calling Serbia by that name when discussing this time period, as is the case with Bosnia, there are only a few sources discussing the involvement of Bosnia (and especially Sinan Pasha) in the suppression of the uprising. Maybe 10-20 at most. I chose a recent one with a concise statement for quotation purposes, but there are plenty of others you could select to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

For an English example that discusses the formal name of Serbia during the revolution with "Karageorge Petrović, supreme commander in Serbia"^: 115 while also describing "Bosnia" and "Serbia" in conflict:^: 125

Baković, Dušan T. (2006). "A Balkan-Style French Revolution? The 1804 Serbian Uprising in European Perspective". Balcanica: Annual of the Institute for Balkan Studies. 36: 113–128. ISSN 2406-0801. The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.

Ivan (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the new "First Serbian Uprising" entry for a rough idea of what my version would look like. Ivan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did you just oppose the underpinning of WP:V? :D The burden of proof that something is out there is on the parties trying to introduce this list article. Y'all have to convince everyone else that this would be the encyclopedia describing something from the real world. If all you have is scattered, vaguely relevant mentions of the topic from vaguely relevant sources, that's just not it. The Bataković 2006 citation likewise does not support the case for this list article - yes, there's a sentence that talks of Bosnian beys, but then it also talks of Ottoman rule and the next sentences talk of Ottoman troops and Muslim violence and Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim forces and it goes on and on. If we cherry-picked any one of these appellations and chose to create a list article based on that, it would be absolute madness. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am communicating that I can rescue the article, because its subject is something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.

The relevant portion of the Bataković quotation is in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of "List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".

Your opposition is because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.

Ivan (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, List of conflicts between England and Germany could have a redundant duplicate - if it existed. It probably doesn't exist because it's not a topic area that attracts so much contrived conflict. If this list is just going to be replicating low-quality nationalist axe-griding from the real world - Wikipedia still shouldn't have to include it, and WP:ARBMAC has a very clear rule against furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently rewriting the article. In a few days, it should be well-sourced. Ivan (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, I am pretty much totally mentally and physically incapacitated with the heat wave we are experiencing around the Adriatic for the last few days. I barely managing to open my laptop and concentrate, and your proposal requires giving some real thought. But, if you think that you can somehow fix it, and if Joy gets on board, I won't oppose. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you. Ivan (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Good last point, @Joy. For the most part, "List of wars involving Entity A" is sufficient, otherwise the possible combinations would produce thousands of stub articles. There are a few exceptions, such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. But List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia is shorter and could be relegated to a section within Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Ivan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFC reviewer comment: I accepted this with the understanding that it would probably get sent straight to AfD, on the grounds that the topic is broadly notable and this kind of more specific editorial decision ought to have some kind of consensus rather than just be the decision of a single AfC reviewer, especially since it's an obvious POV magnet. (Judging from the above, I was right.) If it's deleted, I think it's pretty likely that someone will try to create it again, so if this doesn't end as a merge-and-redirect, it's probably worth salting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Judging from the above, I was right. Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I was implying that you or anyone else in this discussion was POV-pushing, I apologise for that. What I meant by Judging from the above, I was right. is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.
^ Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.
^ Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed drastically between the first discussion and now, and will likely continue to improve for several days. Ivan (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in North Paravur

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to North_Paravur#Educational_organisations. Changed my vote to redirect because I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Paravur: As nominator, I won't mind a redirect to the parent town article either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

AfDs for this article:

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

Just closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when ~~an editor~~ editors familiar with our notability guidelines ~~offers~~ are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article it is a part of the List of country subdivision flags, which is split into continents due to its size. If this article were deleted, this makes the list of country subdivision flags incomplete, while this is useless to readers. I'm converting from galleries to tables with reliable sources. 2A02:A453:D05E:0:8431:8C89:A5D1:202C (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[Pinto_2014_173–180-1] Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

[2] Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.

[3] Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.

[4] Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Sativa

Lists

List of French films of 2026

List of Air Corsica destinations

List of Germania destinations

List of NordStar destinations

List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations

List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations

List of DAT destinations

Music in Dresden

List of Martinair Cargo destinations

List of European Air Charter destinations

List of permanent Ambisonic playback systems

List of Air Malta destinations

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations

List of surnames in Russia

List of Nigerian states by literacy rate

List of Warner Bros. films (1970–1979)

List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979)

List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999)

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

List of Generation Z slang

List of Third Watch characters

List of Teen Titans Go! characters

Locations in His Dark Materials

List of fictional British and Irish universities

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)

List of battles involving Sweden

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

International Anarchist Congresses

List of educational organisations in North Paravur

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

Proposed deletions

Leave a Reply