Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 4 July 2022

• WP:DSLIST

Points of interest related to Lists on Misplaced Pages: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – Style – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages: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.
2. 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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive 3

See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Lists

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

List of deities in Marvel Comics

List of deities in Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprodded without meaningful improvement. Still purely in-universe info with no evidence of notability. Dronebogus (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, same case as with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics) or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gods (DC Comics). Comic list fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN outside "Top Most Whatever Marvel Gods" listicles that might just as well be made by an AI these days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - There is not a single reliable, secondary source being used in this list currently, and very few of the entries here are actually notable. Most of the blue links here are either just to the article of the actual real-life mythological figures, or to other "Lists of Marvel characters". While there are a few groupings here that have multiple blue-linked entries, each of these already have their own dedicated articles that list them (see Olympians (Marvel Comics), Heliopolitans and Asgard (comics). Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete- huge sprawling wall of cruft. Misplaced Pages should not be a comic book index. I also agree that linking fictional deities to actually notable mythological figures is misleading and makes this worse than useless as a navigational aid. Reyk _YO! 03:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Same case as other recent Marvel related AfDs. Shankargb (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails LISTN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with the organizations section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete WP:LISTN failure, per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Agreement that this is WP:TOOSOON. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

2023 in politics and government

2023 in politics and government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON – the one event included here is already mentioned at 2023 in public domain (and a redirect there would be inappropriate), and there's not much to add that would not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Alternatives include redirection to 2023, or a better target if one exists, or draftification, though per WP:REDDEAL deletion would encourage later recreation, similarly to many other not-yet-created 2023 articles. ComplexRational (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Lists. ComplexRational (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Not the right time to talk about events in 2023. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete A clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it's only 5 months until 2023 (at the time of writing), 2023's still in the future. Misplaced Pages doesn't try to predict what will happen in the future, just what is supported by reliable sources. Maybe we can undelete this and work on it when 2023 comes and some notable events happen. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Content can be (selectively) merged from the history if there is editorial consensus for it. Sandstein 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly unreferenced list. We have List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Fine. But we also have this more fancrufty companion. First, what is the criteria for determining if a character is minor or 'main'? Second, while a list of Buffy characters may meet WP:LISTN, a list of minor Buffy characters probably does not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that they're called "minor" in the name of the list suggests all by itself that these aren't especially significant characters. Those who have some level of third-party sourcing to establish their significance can be merged to the main list easily enough. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Many of the characters here are ones that only appeared in an episode or two, and the ones that had slightly more significant roles are already also listed under the "Supporting Characters" section of the main List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. As stated by the nom, while the actual overall concept of the characters of the series very obviously passes WP:LISTN, that does not automatically extend to include every single minor character that ever showed up in the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per Rorshacma. I see a few characters which should be listed, but they are already mentioned in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. However, I wouldn't rely on the number of episodes of a character to decide whether a character is worth mentioning, but it's remaining effect on the audience and whether it is discussed in magazines, books etc. or not. If the page will be deleted, it will mean a lot of work to remove all the links to that page... I am okay with removing some links, but not all. So there need to be some people who will do this afterwards. Maybe some of the sources for the characters, mentioned on this page can also be included in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, as that page doesn't cite any sources. --Dynara23 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Please rescue all the sourced content, before deleting it: the first passage of Dracula, the first passage of Ethan Rayne, the 5th and 6th passage of Kendra Young, the first passage of Severin and maybe the part on Merrick. I think it would be too sad to lose all the sources, if needed on another page. As Daranios says below, it could be moved to the supporting characters section. I would add the passages myself, but I don't wan't to commit copy right violation. I don't know if it is somehow possible to move the page history for only these small parts to the other page? Maybe the old page histories for Kendra Young (1) and Ethan Rayne (2) can also help, as at least the parts on Kendra and Ethan are also added there? --Dynara23 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dynara23: Your request reads just like my suggestion: rescue of sourced content could be achieved merging that to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters, and turning our page here into a redirect afterwards would preserve the history, thus avoiding any copyright issues. Maybe you'd like to amend your !vote into that direction? Daranios (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Would you clarify if you're interested in the sources only? Per WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Where attribution is not needed, "Bare references" not associated with content do not require attribution. It is possible to merge directly from the character redirects' histories, but it would be best to build support first. Do you know the on-wiki sources of the other content you mentioned? Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Flatscan: If I may jump in: the comment already says this is about the sources passages, not only the sources. The mentioned passages about those four characters are not present at List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am insterested in the sources and the content that is referenced. Well the Merrick part can also be found here. I just don't find the part on Severin and Quentin Travers anywhere else. I think it is bad if sourced content already exists and needed on another unsourced page is just lost. The people made an effort to research the topic. The fifth and sixth passage on Kendra forexample can just be added behind the stuff that is already mentioned on Kendra Young. If there would be no other way to keep it, I would propably change my vote to redirect. Dynara23 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  I went through the characters mentioned, and I think they're all covered. It will be a little more work than merging from this list. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Character data

Name	Mentioned in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters	Redirect with history	Content
Dracula	N		quote, can be rewritten from source
Ethan Rayne	Y	Special:PermanentLink/716753682	merge from redirect directly
Kendra Young	Y	Special:PermanentLink/346631673	merge from redirect directly
Severin	Y		quote and sentence that can be rewritten from source
Merrick	N	Special:PermanentLink/81651890	merge from redirect directly
Quentin Travers	Y	Special:PermanentLink/168836438 (no sources)	plot summary cited to episode, redirect's content seems similar

• Okay I already rewrote the parts of Dracula and Severin and put it to the other page. (I don't know if I made any mistakes though, I am not a natural English speaker) Maybe someone else can do the rest. Dynara23 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Both Severin (original diff) and Dracula (original diff) look good! Merrick needs to be added somewhere for his redirect target, but I am unsure because he has only one appearance in the series. I retargeted the other redirects – Ethan Rayne, Kendra Young, and Quentin Travers – ahead of the close because there is no support for keeping this list. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Okay I have added Merrick, however not the text and the source of the List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters article. I think he should be added to the list. Maybe he only appears in one Buffy episode, but next to this he is in the Buffy movie as well as in the comics and is talked about a lot. Furthermore he is the father of the main characters in two Buffy novels. He also is a character which influences the title character's actions a lot and you will find a lot of sources about him. I have only added the sources to three books and one web article, but when you search on Google books for Buffy Merrick, you will find a lot more. I think he is a very notable character. --Dynara23 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I retargeted Merrick also. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect sourced/relevant content to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters, where I think this fits well. While we may not need a spin-out list for minor characters, and don't need to list every character there is, throwing out relevant content (and the existing sources themselves) would be against WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as mostly unreferenced. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the better sourced list of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. If content cannot be referenced it should be removed, not spun off into articles that bypass WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. However, I have no objection to properly-sourced content in the article being merged to List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_characters#Supporting_characters or another suitable target. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Merge selectively (not everything!) to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters. This doesn't warrant a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have specific characters in mind? Dynara23 has already rewritten a few from their sources. This is covered by WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Where attribution is not needed, and no direct copying from this list has been identified, so deletion is allowed. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

List of comedians from Quebec

List of comedians from Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not satisfy WP:NLIST. An unmanageable list that would be better as a category. – Meena • 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Quebec. – Meena • 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Entertainment. Spiderone 11:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep but trim all the redlinks. The list goes hand-in-hand with the category, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It has in independent reliable sources :

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/03/01/sondage-leger-le-barometre-des-plus-grands-chanteurs-et-chanteuses-quebecois, https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1166702, ;

The list is useful for research, and you have plenty of lists of people in[REDACTED] such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_people_from_Syracuse,_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_people_from_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_people_from_Mumbai https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_French_actors https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Dutch_people https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_German_actors https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_people_from_CataloniaPatrick.N.L (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep A valid navigational and informational list. I have removed some of the entries that don't have their own Misplaced Pages article. More pruning is required. Enough blue links to justify having a list article. Dream Focus 08:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I went ahead and finished removing all the entries that didn't link to a Misplaced Pages article. Dream Focus 18:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Liz 04:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

List of U.S. states ranked per five-factor model personality trait

List of U.S. states ranked per five-factor model personality trait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list is based off of what appears to be a single study, recreating the findings of a survey from about two decades ago. It fails WP:NLIST. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology, Lists, and United States of America. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete This is filler you'd see on the 'health news' during an early afternoon newscast so a Ron Burgandy-like anchor can get out his 'those neurotic New Yorkers!' material, not a serious health study. Nate • (chatter) 06:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete non-notable ranking, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as per rough consensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

List of football stadiums in Ecuador

List of football stadiums in Ecuador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not satisfy WP:LISTN or warrant a standalone article considering the small size of the list. – Meena • 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Ecuador. – Meena • 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I created the page because I thought we should have a list for Ecuador, as there are lists of football stadiums about all other South American countries

  And for "not having enough information for a stand-alone list", List of football stadiums in Paraguay has even less details than that of Ecuador

  If it is about no cites on the page, I could go and search for one and add it back

  May I know what is the reason for planning to delete?

  Thanks ChampsRT (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I disparage this argument this is a prime example of a list serving a navigational purpose per WP:LISTN. There are scores of these in Category:Lists of association football stadiums, and it's an appropriate way to list such places with additional detail in the table. Reywas92 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Football venues in Ecuador. "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". North America 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  18:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CLN. Yes, it lacks sources, but that's not a reason for deletion in itself. Lugnuts 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep useful for navigation and information which meets our guideline for lists at WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep A valid navigation and informational list. Dream Focus 06:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Minor League Baseball lists

List of Minor League Baseball lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN; this is something resembling a template, from what I can make of it. It does not warrant an article. – Meena • 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. – Meena • 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Template:List of Minor League Baseball Lists and convert to template form as even the nominator says it’s better as a template, fix it over deleting it. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, as it facilitates navigation per MOS:LIST#Navigation. It's organized into sections and subsections, so it provides something simple categories don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, as User:Clarityfiend stated, the sections and subsections aid navigation in ways that a category (or template) cannot. In addition, some of the articles included here are not just lists but do contain a list related to Minor League Baseball. So, it would probably not be appropriate to place a template within those, and their association with other, related lists would be lost. Also, navigation templates are not shown on mobile devices. Waz:T-C-E 03:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  18:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep the list is useful and meets our WP:LISTN guideline. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST and navigational purpose is better served by a category or template. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The guideline for a list has been met, this a valid navigational list. Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly states you can have the information in more than one place, and you should not delete one because you prefer a different format. Dream Focus 06:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

List of regional flag proposals

List of regional flag proposals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Putting this here not really as a deletion discussion, but as a what-to-do-with-this discussion. It's been tagged as OR and for want of sources for a year now (I expect some synthesis stuff in there too), has a really vague inclusion criterion, and I don't really see a viable path to improvement short of splitting this into multiple lists with stricter inclusion criteria, which is basically WP:TNT. Iseultparlez moi 06:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete I was also considering tagging this article for deletion when I came across it but decided against it after knowing there was an article for national flag proposals. But now I'm thinking that maybe List of national flag proposals should be nominated for deletion too on the basis that anyone can propose a flag and that "well-documented" is very ambiguous term for describing something. I'm aware that dynamic lists exist, but this seems like an overly-dynamic list, in which some proposals are going to discovered and added while some may be removed on the basis that the proposal is not notable enough. Seems like a good article idea on paper, but in my opinion, there really isn't a proper way to execute it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Liz 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

List of compositions by Lou Harrison

List of compositions by Lou Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to warrant a split from Lou Harrison and could easily be merged into his article; the size of the list is fairly small hence not really in need of a list. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Lists. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to Lou Harrison as a new section in his article. (Technically, this would be a revert to the state of affairs before June 24.) Having this list at Harrison's article seems sufficient to me. I agree with the nominator that the split is not necessary, especially since there seems to be a lack of sources that assess Harrison's works in list form. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Harrison was astoundingly prolific, and the list is potentially expandable to very considerable length. There is certainly no lack of sources, Von Gunden's Music of Lou Harrison having a bulky appendix. I don't see a clear guideline at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music, but why would this case be different from featured articles like Percy_Grainger#Music?Sparafucil (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, do not merge. I am fairly unconvinced by the nominator's rationale, which does not cite any guidelines or policy. The rather subjective 'the size of the list is fairly small', fails to convince me when the list in question is 100+ works. Thus, I don't think a list of this many entries belongs in a general biography article for WP, so having a different article seems much more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to type out a distinct policy for my vote, but there are several that are relevant here. Especially WP:NLIST saying that a list topic must be notable in its own right beyond serving as a collection of things; plus WP:NOTCATALOG saying that WP tries to avoid a bare list of items with no surrounding context on why they should be laid out in list form. The moral of this story is that the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts. In conclusion, this gentlemen created a lot of compositions. That's not particularly notable when his existing biographical article already describes his long and successful career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Both articles are not very small, hence the WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF was reasonable. Maybe more than size alone, WP:UNDUE was a consideration. Also, let's not start an AfD about every decision someone makes or an argument about every dissenting opinion someone expresses. There is much more gain to be made in the article space! gidonb (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, do not merge per comment above. Sparafucil (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonable WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIZESPLIT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

List of district heating systems

List of district heating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an example of What Misplaced Pages is not with no actual encyclopedic value. It is not a "List of district heating systems" but one of systems ranked on annual heat sales (2001) based on Library of Congress data. I prodded this but it was contested and a "Needs updating" tag placed. It became outdated in 2002 and is just a historical snapshot of some company sales figures. The lead actually states "(2001 data based on this article, other figures based on companies' data):" so is basically primary sourced sales figures. A 2004 link requires a signing up for a Zoho account to save to a clipboard to view which is advertising or promotional. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG by virtue of the lack of independent reliable sources. Yes, the article could be updated, but that doesn't fix the inherent issues with the article. This is nothing more than an article that ranks sales figures across some (and only some) companies and so is a flagrant WP:NOTDIRECTORY offender. - Aoidh (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete There is a lack of full cover and independent resources, according to WP:INDEPENDENT--Bigneeerman (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/X86 instruction listings. Sandstein 08:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

List of discontinued x86 instructions

List of discontinued x86 instructions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes 08:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks x86 assembly Wikibook. Fails WP:LISTN and as per @Fram: WP:NOTMANUAL. Dr vulpes 08:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not see a deletion rationale, nor can I come up with one myself. The information in the article is cited quite thoroughly, and it's written neutrally for the purpose of informing the reader. It's not an "instruction manual"; the closest comparison I can see is that it's about a technical subject. Perhaps it is more detailed and boring than the average reader would find interesting, but Misplaced Pages is not a supermarket tabloid, so we do not have to worry about how many eyeballs an article brings in to justify its existence. jp×g 21:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has run a month, and I do not see any situation where a consensus is going to evolve. Note, socks, duplicate votes have been disregarded, but even among established editors and the later trend-we do not have clear keep consensus here. Suggest discussion continue editorially as to whether a merger would be a solution or a size issue. Star Mississippi 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

like the dozens of other articles this user has created, this isn't a necessary standalone list and is basically just an itunes directory. Anything relevant can be included in the main article about Runa Laila (as in anything that can be sourced outside of places to buy it.) PRAXIDICAE💕 20:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete because[REDACTED] is WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What would you say about those articles? List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar, List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar, List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade. They are also similar type of directory and should be deleted for the same reason. I hope everyone will consider my points. Abbasulu (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep - there are similar aticles List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade, List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Why they aren’t deleted? Abbasulu (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abbasulu: Please see WP:WHATABOUT. "What about (something)?" is an argument strongly discouraged in deletion discussions. The linked page says:

The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.

I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, obviously enough. Misplaced Pages is not itunes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are many list articles precisely of a person’s discography, very similar to this. Why nominate this article for deletion in particular? Abyan Malek (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Probably you have not watched these articles List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik, List of Urdu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. Both of these articles are similar, they are simply a collection of names of their songs, as is this article. And the latter lne is a collection of just 12 entries, very small article. This can easily be redirected or merged in her discography article. Plaese consider these cases and judge fairly. I see many similar but weaker discography or itules type indiscriminate lists stay in[REDACTED] for years but not raising any eyebrews. Abbasulu (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Happily obliged: both of these are now at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep because arricles like this exist but theres no reason to delete this because it may be similar to an 'itune' listing. Abyan Malek (talk) 5:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following: 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This, being a trivial directory-like listing of seemingly every song ever recorded by some artist (information which probably is of no interest whatsoever except to the most dedicated of fans), is obviously "not suitable", as explicitly established by the community. Similarly problematic lists should also be deleted - go read WP:WHATABOUTX: it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to Runa Laila#Discography as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by Superastig as "redirect to Runa Laila#Discography as an WP:ATD. Discarding the "keep" votes which state WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyone is free to merge anything important to the target article." This was overturned as a WP:BADNAC at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to Runa Laila#Discography because this is an excessively lengthy directory, and the encyclopedia would be better served with a more selective listing. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete The only arguments for keeping this list are of the form WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.

In contrast, there are strong policy-based arguments that this list does not belong in Misplaced Pages, which does not aim to be a list of everything, but to be a high-quality encyclopedia. Being an encyclopedia means not just listing songs in a discography, but providing prose analysis of them, summarizing what reliable sources say about their recording, reception, significance, and influence.

This list also fails the most common notability guideline for lists, because no independent reliable source has discussed the Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila as a group. And it fails the three purposes of lists. Without analysis, the list does not convey encyclopedic information. Out of the roughly 700 songs, none has a Misplaced Pages article, and there's no evidence that any of them are notable, so the list does not allow the reader to navigate among them. If it is intended as a development list, it should be in user space, not article space.

Merge is inappropriate because only about 4% of the songs cite any source, the sources don't always support all of the content where cited, and the sources aren't always reliable (IMDb, Amazon). Redirect is an alternative to deletion that recognizes that the content does not belong on Misplaced Pages. Redirect is not inappropriate, but not particularly helpful in this case, as any reader looking for a list of songs recorded by Runa Laila will find Runa Laila with or without a redirect. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a redirect, I agree that WP:RKEEP 3 (aids search) does not really apply. Searching for the exact list title returns unrelated "List of songs recorded by" articles, but the shortened and more likely Bengali songs Runa Laila returns Runa Laila as its first result, followed by an Urdu song list and this list. Intersecting List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila#Album songs and Runa Laila#Discography, the only overlap is the album Ganga Amar Ma Padma Amar Ma. Its track list is not included in her article – to be clear, I oppose merging it as it would overwhelm the section – and it doesn't have an article, so a reader looking for Bengali songs would not find them. This approaches common WP:Redirects for discussion rationale "not mentioned at/in target" and WP:RDELETE 2 (confusing). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Instead of replying, Please clearly cast your opinion, whether you support for deletion or keeping. It will count as a vote. Thank you. Abbasulu (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The policy based argument, made in an old AfD of a similar article (recently quoted at another AfD), appears to be WP:WORKS. Hemantha (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) --Guerillero 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep - The other two articles on Runa Laila has successfully survived deletion. This discussion is meaningless. Most of the directory articles have easily survived deletion. Abbasulu (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's twice now you've voted. Avilich (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abbasulu You're not allowed to vote twice. SBKSPP (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: Discography of a notable singer is a valid WP:CFORK. Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and India. Hemantha (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, per arguments that have been extensively developed in related AFDs (and which I thought, apparently incorrectly, that I had already posted here), and in particular per the following:
  • Absent strong considerations to the contrary, WP:EDIT and particularly WP:PRESERVE prevail, and issues over the scope and content of these lists should be addressed through collaborative editing (the "wiki process"), for which AFD is neither necessary nor helpful. And there are no policy-based reasons for deletion or removal here, let alone any strong ones, as detailed below.
  • I'm not sure CFORK is quite on point here, but it doesn't matter, because this seems like a perfectly cromulent WP:SIZESPLIT.
  • NOTADIRECTORY first observes that Misplaced Pages does often provide useful directory-like functions, but qualifies this with six examples of directories that Misplaced Pages is not. Only two of these exclusions could conceivably apply here, but neither actually does: (1) This is not a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", because the value of this list precisely comes from the "contextual information" with which this list is richly endowed. (2) This is also not a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization": language is a logical categorization that arises directly from the subject matter. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would be something like "Songs performed by X in movies that also featured views of the Taj Mahal."
  • INDISCRIMINATE states that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and provides some specific examples of indiscriminate content (none of which apply -- a list of songs is not a "lyrics database"). Even if a "should" could create a basis for deletion, it does not do so here, because this list does put its data into context. Although we might quibble over the current state of sourcing of this list, that is a matter for improvement, not deletion.
  • WP:NLIST: (a) does not provide an independent basis for deletion, since it merely enumerates one example of a type of list that is generally considered non-deletable, and (b) is highly unlikely to apply when the topic of the list is the very same body of work for which the singer is notable in the first place, as is the case here.
  • WHATABOUT / OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a subsection of an essay about how some Wikipedians dislike some arguments. In fact, the longstanding presence of numerous lists of this kind is a far better guide to global Misplaced Pages consensus, as established through collaborative editing, than any local consensus could ever be in the unrepresentative environment of AFD. (For a different take than mine, but one that still takes the wind out of the sails of this popular shout-down, see the essay Misplaced Pages:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments.) I could write up an essay about how WHATABOUT is a silly argument and go around citing that as if it were policy, but that would be just as ridiculous as citing WHATABOUT in this way.
  • Finally, per the great-grandmother of all policies, this content is useful and encyclopedic and Misplaced Pages would be diminished by its absence. Therefore, any guidelines, policies or essays that appear to militate against its inclusion are either being misconstrued or are so inapposite that they can reasonably be ignored in this and similar cases. Likewise, any claims that arguments not grounded in (other) Misplaced Pages policies should be ignored as not being "policy based" should be disregarded, because (a) they ignore the reason for having policies to begin with and (b) such gatekeeping is fundamentally contrary to the idea of an open wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Lists like this of notable singers in South Asian Indian film industries where songs are important to the films are perfectly fine, but they've got to be better sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Runa Laila is notable and her work is notable. This informative list belongs in Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Visviva's overview is an excellent rationale. Shahid • 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Discography not discussed in WP:Reliable sources ("If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it"). Does not contain "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" (IINFO, NOTDIRECTORY, etc.), and is only as good as the spotify and apple music directories which it solely cites as sources. Avilich (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Visviva, the many "policy-based arguments" for deletion are, at the very least, misconstrued and wrongly applied to this article and do not stand under scrutiny. The suggestion that a listing of songs of a singer (that is, their body of work) is not notable is silly when the singer's claim to notability is coverage of that very body of work. The grouping by language is most likely a WP:SIZESPLIT because a single page would be too long to navigate comfortably. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Per Visviva; + would especially like to emphasise this part of WHATABOUT which is all too frequently ignored: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments above, this seems like a perfectly valid supplemental page. Artw (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Liz 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe lists

Marvel Cinematic Universe lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an unhelpful "article" which duplicates the category Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe lists, but requires additional maintenance each time an article is created or moved. If a section like this is needed, then Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be the place to include it. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete or Merge some of the lists present at the "article" to the Outline, which already links to the films list and Phases, the TV series list and those groupings, the short films and digital series, tie-in comics, music, and numerous cast lists with the characters link. The other characters lists could be linked to in the "Recurring characters", while the in-universe features lists could be at a new section at the Outline, as could the accolades and box office. Especially considering that this list article was created without prior consensus and most editors (including myself) just went along with it, and how the Outline has been around longer and fulfills the purpose of a list article for an MCU overview. With a rethink of how we present some of these lists and contents to all be at the Outline, I would be leaning to and not be opposed to deleting this list article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete or Merge per reasons above. Mostly redundant when compared to the Outline article. TNstingray (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete or Merge per others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: This is why we have categories and outlines. ―Susmuffin  11:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe]. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

List of memorable movie character names

List of memorable movie character names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. (Who has decided said criteria...?) – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Lists. – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, no source for any aspect of the criteria. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removed criteria. List is based on cited references. Amirak (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete No proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. These categorically aren't – the first is It should be unique and memorable name of a prominent character in a (Hollywood) movie, but "unique and memorable" is of course hardly objective. Furthermore, why Hollywood specifically? That's just blatant WP:Systemic bias. I don't see this being salvageable. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We could rename it to List of memorable movie character names in American cinema, and also have Category:List of memorable movie character names in Mexican cinema, List of memoralbe names in British cinema, List of memoralbe nakmes in Hindi-language cinema, etc. That would elimante systemic bias, but it would not really solve the issues of no clear definition. Is this supposed to be characters who are only in movies, or are characters who actually first appeared in books but were later in movies eligibile as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, a few like James Bond started out as a character in a British novel, and Eliza Doolittle as a character in a British play, so evidently if a character was in a film funded by the American film production complex, we can include it no matter what its origin. If that makes any sense I doubt. The whole thing boils down to there are no objective ways to decide what does and what does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. This list isn't encyclopedic, it's just someone's personal list of memorable movie names. Now a list such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains could be justified since it would have coverage of the list itself, but this isn't that type of list. To be honest, this could potentially be deleted under WP:A11 or at the very least, snow closed since I don't imagine this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh come on -- I included six references. This is hardly a personal list! Amirak (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • • Beyond that, the list of 20 has Dorothy Gale and Mary Poppins on it. Neither of them are on this list. Why? What reliable sources justify this exclusion. These are another two characters that originate with books, not films. That may be a reason to exclude, but then why are Bond and Doolittle here since neither started as a film character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    References are not the same as reliable sources. You included references that list 20 (and not clearly because of name significance per se), 50, 101, and a few that list 100.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Thoroughly subjective list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Arguably any of AFI 100 Years... series articles is subjective. Amirak (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are multiple holes in that argument. First is that the AFI bases their lists on research and a very specific set of rules. This limits the subjectivity to a certain degree because to get on the list the film would have to not only meet those requirements, but also have to have been covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. It's also worth noting that the list is limited to American films that were released during a very specific period in time. Secondly, AFI is a major notable institution so a list from them will be seen as more of a landmark thing than say, a list put out by Empire or Watch Mojo. They don't put out "lists of the most notable/major/etc" every day.

There's also the issue that the lists are based on characters rather than names. Big difference there, believe it or not. A character can have a memorable name but otherwise be a forgettable character. (IE, people don't remember anything about the character other than the name akin to how many people remember the phrase "that's a spicy meatball" but not the product/company it was meant to promote without looking it up online.)

Then there's the issue of this being based almost solely on US films - assuming a list of this type is feasible to create, it would need to take a global perspective rather than just US films. This would then move on to the issue of sourcing.

Not every list is going to be a RS as far as "most memorable characters" or "most memorable names" goes. A lot of these lists tend to be created as part of a slow news day and are just a product of whomever is working on the news article. Research may be conducted, but not always. Then there's the fact that not all lists are going to be reliable. The List Challenges page is certainly not going to be a RS on here, nor will random sites like The Good in Movies. Watch Mojo could be debated, but it's not going to be the strongest source here. However that poses a new issue:

What names are included off these lists? Do you include only the "weird" or "funny" names? Why one name over the other? What are the qualifications for it being a "memorable" name? To reiterate an earlier point, why focus on the names when the lists are about characters? Picking out names when this isn't the focus of the lists is essentially original research. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be harsh here, just that this is still a personal list because at the end of the day you're taking sources that aren't about memorable names and cherry picking characters out of them. That's why lists of this nature are typically not doable, because ultimately it's going to be based on OR to some degree. At most there could be a list of characters frequently considered to be iconic, but even then that would take a lot of justification and sourcing to be feasible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You make some valid points, esp. regarding difference between characters and their names, which is what this list is about. I conceded there is subjectivity in the list, but I'd argue there is also some value (cf. List of humorous units of measurement). There is no other such list focusing on the character name, which in many cases is a creative expression of the writer just as the plot/script is. I think you either way for making a thoughtful, cogent argument. Amirak (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"thank you..." arrgghh! Amirak (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, also unforgivable that it's missing Jeff Spicoli... Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  That character is not found in any of the cited sources. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete- the is basically the Platonic ideal of an incurably subjective inclusion criterion. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're right -- subjective criteria removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Arbitrary arbitrariness. "It shouldn't be ... just weird"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete This list is literally only notable to a film fan looking for baby names (which will be rejected by their spouse because 'no you're not naming our child Keyser Soze'). Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Other than "Forrest", this last bares no resemblance to popular movie-based baby names . Amirak (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  "this list bares..." Amirak (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Absolutely no reason for this to exist. –Ploni (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW, "memorable" is inherently subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Culturally significant"? open to suggestion. Many articles have an "in popular culture" section. Amirak (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The "in popular culture" section is a legacy of Misplaced Pages being overrun by fans creating trivial listings of fan crufts in the years prior to 2006. It is one of the early problems with Misplaced Pages we are working to fix. It is not a sign of what things should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. No Pussy Galore, no Biggus Dickus--User:Amirak, can you explain this oversight? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: We have a Bwyan --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oversight indeed - alas Monty Python's Life of Brian was not in any of the cited sources. But Pussy Galore deserves to be there, IMHO. Amirak (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Amirak: stop with the WP:BLUDGEON already. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
      • User:TenPoundHammer, I'm fine with Amirak's responses--they're in good spirits. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as WP:A1. Nonsense list with BS inclusion criteria and godawful sourcing (only one list mentions names in the title and it’s from some random site I’ve never heard of). Dronebogus (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete no real reason to set up a limit, and since other sources chose to include multiple numbers and there is no agreement on what does and does not belong in this list, this will always be just a list that a few people agree on but has no concensus behind it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Since we don't do WP:BJAODN anymore, I can't suggest moving it to the List of unmemorable movie character names first. Totally justified move, btw, given WP:OR nature of this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: There is no reason to keep what are functionally a random person's personal opinions here. ―Susmuffin  11:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Snow delete as WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I agree with all of the above comments , this is a totally subjective list with no criteria, has OR, and fails NPOV. What does the memorable movie character names mean, as almost all of the refs have different names? Also, what is even the criteria for inclusion? It fails unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources (per TompaDompa), and has loads of exclusions. This should not be in mainspace and IMO this AfD could be closed as Snow Delete. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, completely arbitrary and subjective list with no criterion whatsoever about what makes a movie character name memorable. The cited sources don't appear to be used to establish inclusion criteria. JIP | Talk 15:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Toon In with Me episodes (2022)

List of Toon In with Me episodes (2022) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

List of Toon In with Me episodes (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

No evidence that either of these pages meets WP:LISTN. I could see an article about each TV season (i.e. like Grey's Anatomy (season 17)) assuming it is significantly covered in RS and is not better covered at the main article for the series. This list is not such an article and entirely lacks independent perspective, failing WP:NOTPLOT. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Lists of episodes are usually encyclopedic, but these are effectively unsourced, and the "plot summaries" are likely copyright violations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  A simple plot summary is not a copyright violation, or thousands of movie review sites, newspapers and blogs would be infringements. I've worked with Disney's copyright approval people on animation related projects, so I have some experience—this isn't a valid fear. It's only an infringement if it reproduces footage/audio. Ramapith (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral If the episode list doesn't fit in the main article for the notable series, it is acceptable to have a spinout article to hold the valid content. This however is just a copy and pasted official description of episodes found on IMDB and elsewhere. Dream Focus 04:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose To have episode lists for shows that premiere daily to be broken up into years is not an uncommon practice. Since this nomination was posted, and after previous editors have commented, I have added a substantial amount of sources to each episode list. As for the summaries, the list of featured cartoons takes up space and can create the appearance of too much plot. In reality each's episode is only aground 1 single sentence each, which is far from excessive.Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Is the show just a guy and his puppet introducing classic cartoon shorts? Dream Focus 06:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is so much deeper than that. It is a true life changing masterpiece. It is the greatest thing mankind has ever created. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I detect sarcasm Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Weak delete. How does this meet WP:LISTN? Frankly, most lists of episodes are problematic. What's the difference between a TV guide and an encyclopedia again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  m 67.3.133.7 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  j 67.3.133.7 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects have been pointed to Lists of Marvel Comics characters deleted. TigerShark (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Marvel Comics demons

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Articles for deletion/List of Marvel Comics demons
• Articles for deletion/List of Marvel Comics demons (2nd nomination)

List of Marvel Comics demons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wall of fancruft with no actual sources whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone 09:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:FANCRUFT, listcruft variety. No evidence this meets WP:LISTN. Previous AfD ended at no consensus due to argumentsts that it contains blue-linked entities, but I am not sure what policy that argument is based on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Something dream focus made up that doesn’t actually exist, I presume. Dronebogus (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - Aside from the reasons already brought up in the above discussions, there also seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR here, as there are a number of characters/sections/etc. that are listed here with no actual reliable sources supporting why they would all be grouped together. The number of blue links is also not a very good argument for Keeping as many of them were just circular links that led right back to this page (I think I removed all of those at this point). Even among the remaining ones, many of them are just links to other lists of Marvel characters or links to articles where they are not the main topic and barely mentioned. There are a few of the typical click-bait "TOP TEN STRONGEST MARVEL DEMONS" type "articles" out there, which I'm sure someone will bring up as evidence that this passes WP:LISTN, but I will preemptively argue that they do not, as they merely cover a small handful of these characters with a couple sentences of entirely in-universe plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I have removed the original research problems and mentions of any demon which didn't have their own article or significant mention in another article. This navigational list is more useful than Category:Marvel Comics demons since it allows for additional information to be found, helping readers find what they might be interested in reading. Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and WP:LISTPURP are relevant here. Dream Focus 16:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus I can somewhat see how this made sense for the list of fictional deities, which is a big concept. But this is b/c I also believe we can have an article for fictional deity, a concept. Whereas I have trouble finding Marvel Comic demon a notable concept. More to a point, what's the rationale for us even having the category Category:Marvel Comics demons? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can’t just make a list of any random crap and say it’s “navigational”. The other day I was looking for the name of an anime girl with a headband, that doesn’t mean I want or need a Misplaced Pages list of anime girls by headwear. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure? You could try to be WP:BOLD and make the page ;-) Mathmo 18:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - the majority of the characters listed have little connection to one another. Grouping them together serves no purpose that I can see. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete- huge sprawling wall of fancruft. This content would be more at home on Wikia or on a fan page somewhere, but on this encyclopedia it is poorly sourced and excessively crufty, with lots of original research and little to no navigational value. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. No significant sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Let this page stay. I don't know where else on this website we should list the information on the demons. To the person closing this discussion if the outcome is delete, I ask that you transfer all the demon redirects to this page to each of the List of Marvel Comics characters pages so that they would be mentioned there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Are Demons really characters though? — SirDot (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Begging for mercy is not a keep rationale. We don’t need to list “information on the demons” here at all, it’s not sufficiently notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
      • To recap, I am asking the closer to to transfer the demon redirects to this page to the respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Chthon and Set already have redirects there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - The list is being filled in (as well as references where appropriate), demonstrating the connections of many of the demonic characters to one another within Marvel continuity. Feels like a nice corollary to List of deities in Marvel Comics, and could be a useful resource for academic research into the mythology of Marvel. -- stoshmaster (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are still no reliable independent sources talking about this topic; your points are either inapplicable to this encyclopedia (why do we care how filled in it is or how a bunch of comic book demons are connected?) or WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSUSEFUL. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per the arguments of Dream Focus and Stoshmaster, if topic can be improved then it does not need to be deleted. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  There has been no serious improvement, your point is inapplicable. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that some mild edit warring has occurred with the article on 4 July 2022 (UTC), with 12,915 bytes of data being added and removed. As of this post, the 12,915 bytes of contested data is present in the article (diff, permanent link).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment having reviewed the additional material, I will say the article is better presented than it was when I first !voted. However, I still feel the majority of the characters are unrelated aside from the weak connection of sharing the label "demon." Marvel's demonic mythology was never consistently developed between different comic series, and this list is synthesis until the academic research Stoshmaster mentions is actually performed. If we retain this list as a useful resource for that potential research, we risk a citogenesis problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I tend to agree that the list is a bit broad, and that a number of entries are not demons per se but instead have some connection with demonic power. For instance, are the various Ghost Riders or Nightcrawler really demons?? Maybe if the list were culled to solely being "actual" demons, it might be more useful? (Someone with more knowledge than me would need to make those decisions.) -- stoshmaster (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Circa 2009, Ghost Rider was revealed to be an angel. I don't know if that's still the case. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Extremely crufty; this information belongs in FANDOM rather than Misplaced Pages. Fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep the list fulfills the purposes of information and navigation WP:LISTN. Really that is the point of any list on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t answer the core question of whether a “marvel comics demon” is even a notable concept. This isn’t a ballot, find a source. Dronebogus (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - The list adds a lot of extra context. Mathmo 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - That really is not a valid reason for keeping as it does not address any of the concerns brought up in the AFD, namely that there is not any significant coverage in reliable sources to even establish that "Marvel Comics Demons" are even a notable concept, let alone to support any of the information. There really has been no improvement to this article since its nomination - the article may have been reorganized to look prettier, but is still entirely just plot information cited directly to issues of comics, if even that. AFD is not a vote, and arguments that could basically be boiled down to WP:ITSUSEFUL style arguments should not be considered when deciding consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've read those concerns, and they do not make a convincing case for deletion. Mathmo 18:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, they are just policy based. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete As Dronebogus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented, none of the Keep votes have provided reliable sources proving that the topic meets WP:GNG, or that this is even a coherent topic. They are mostly WP:ITSUSEFUL or similar arguments. I, too, believe that the topic fails GNG based on my search results. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to meet LISTN or GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - There are no sources to meet GNG about the topic as a whole. There's nothing to make it suitable as a stand alone list. There are probably 100 other Marvel character lists, so this provides no encyclopedic navigational benefit. TTN (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG because it doesn't have enough sources. Jontesta (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre#Satire and comedy. Consensus is against keeping, but split between merge and delete. As a compromise, the article is redirected, and merging anything from the history is up to editors. Sandstein 13:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

List of science fiction sitcoms

List of science fiction sitcoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article dating back to 2002 prodded with "Pure WP:OR with zero sources; fails WP:LISTN. Does not have an associated article (Science fiction sitcom redirects here) or even an associated category." - I am bringing it to AfD as it seems like it could do with greater discussing based on it's venerability. Please consider my vote neutral. Artw (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. Artw (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This was listed twice at two delsort pages. This has been corrected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Science fiction sitcom with the goal of turning this into an article consisting mostly of prose. As a second choice, delete per LaundryPizza's PROD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre#Satire and comedy, where many of these shows are already listed, per Daranios below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that the combination of "science fiction" and "sitcom" is a notable topic. Seems to fail WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This is effectively a List of science fiction television shows, right? I'd expect that such a list may pass WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, it's a list of science fiction comedy television shows. The science fiction television shows that are meant to be taken more seriously are not on this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:SALAT and WP:GNG. Not enough coverage to establish this as its own topic, and there are already more reliable articles about the same thing.Jontesta (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jontesta: Care to name those "more reliable articles about the same thing"? Daranios (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre. What we have here is a good aid for navigation. I am not sure if the topic fails WP:LISTN, having not searched myself, but it would fit well into that target and could fullfill the navigation function there. And as Piotrus has already indicated, there should be no doubt about the notability with regard to List of science fiction television programs. That should also solve any perceived problems with WP:SALAT. I think List of science fiction television shows indicates more than just sitcoms, right? So I have pointed that redirect to the broader, existing list as long as there are no objections. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, according to WP:LISTN, the group needs to be discussed. Best comedy/humorous sci-fi is routinely discussed by independent sources, just as humorous scifi books are. Without a category this is a useful resource for this group without having to guess, guess, guess.Halbared (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to List of science fiction television programs by genre per Daranios. There's no question that the list of science fiction television programs in general would pass WP:LISTN, and this list is basically just an unnecessary spinout of that topic. Redirecting there, and merging over any shows that may be missing from the main list, would basically solve the issues with this list. Rorshacma (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Liz 04:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

List of places in Muzaffargarh

List of places in Muzaffargarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet WP:NLIST. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of List-related deletion discussions. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It is a valid list, listing places in a location, many with their own articles blue linked to. Dream Focus 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The list contains many WP pages links and still expanding. I will add more WP pages in this list in future.-Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The article has improved. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like a reasonable navigational page under WP:NLIST.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep with the understanding that the article needs a serious overhaul. SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

List of locomotives

• Articles for deletion/List of locomotives
• Articles for deletion/List of locomotives (2nd nomination)

List of locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely old and outdated list that duplicates Category:Locomotives . Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Keep. Because:

  1. Old and outdated? it can be updated, not a reason to delete. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet.
  2. Duplicating? The guideline WP:NOTDUP says It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: This is a clear case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; no amount of cleanup can make this list useful. "Locomotives" is far, far too broad a category for a complete list to be of any use. A complete list would be absolutely massive: a back-of-the-envelope count suggests something like 2,000 current articles on locomotive classes, which would probably double when including all the non-notable small-batch classes of early steam locomotives. That would be nearly impossible to assemble or maintain to any degree of quality - and would be less useful than the existing category tree under Category:Locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not true, very large lists of tens of thousands of items exist (eg historic sites, sensibly broken out into sublists) or millions in List of species. Sure have sections or sublists on locomotive classes vs individual famous locomotives. Do these exist already? Then it makes sense to have a world-wide overall introduction/index to the sublists. --Doncram (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

List of species literally redirects to Category:Lists of species --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Well, it would be wonderful if there were a wonderful written introduction to the topic and links to sublists there (lame reply, sorry). The 90,000 or so US NRHP historic sites are explicitly listed though, from List of RHPs. --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That contains useful statisical information, though. I'm not sure what statistics a list of locomotives could present.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete This comment from the article's creator at the first AfD in 2004 says it all, really: Delete. I was the article's creator; its functionality has been fully superseded by categories. It is redundant. Not all lists are replaceable by categories, but this one is. —Morven 00:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) Per NOTDIRECTORY we do not need this list, and trying to fully populate it would be an exercise in futility anyhow. The keep vote is not at all persuasive to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  It has been eighteen years; Morven could have changed their mind. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The relevant policy/guidance is wp:CLN, which explains how categories and lists and navigation templates are complementary. A list can include references and details and photos and can be organized sensibly according to the topics. It can and should include an introduction where most significant list-items are explained. Importantly, it can include redlinks and sources supporting those topics importance, which categories cannot do at all. Generalizing, pretty much if there exists a category then there can be a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The comments from 2004 are not relevant, that was long before tables were available in wikimedia and before standards and examples of great list-articles were created. I agree the list seems dead; the last talk-page discussion was in 2008. Where are the railroad enthusiasts?

The current list could/should be developed to include section on individual notable locomotives ( eg ones on historic registers ), perhaps organized by nation the province or state. And list locomotive models/classes organized by manufacturer. It should include sortable tables including photos. --Doncram (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If it’s dead then why keep it? There’s very little actual content; why not just WP:TNT this crap and create a series of narrower lists (i.e. steam vs electric vs diesel) with tables? Dronebogus (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

An overview/index to sublists is needed. Some would say this us then a "List of lists" or a "List of lists of lists" and delight in that. Calling for wp:TNT is an admission this is a valid topic, and then see wp:TNTTNT (essay to which I contributed) for multiple reasons deletion not appropriate. Doncram (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why does Category:Locomotives not provide a sufficient overview? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. the rules state that categories and lists can both cover the same thing, that list are better because they allow additional information so more useful at helping people find what they will be interested in reading. Dream Focus 04:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can’t just call any deletion reason you don’t like (i.e. 99% of them) “invalid”. being old, outdated, and redundant is a valid reason; you’re saying it’s an invalid application. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is actually a policy on valid reasons to delete here WP:DEL-REASON, so I think User:Dream_Focus is approaching the AfD in a very reasonable way. CT55555 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  That list of reasons isn't all-inclusive. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Someone already linked to Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. So redundant is not a valid reason. And old or outdated are not valid reasons either, see WP:OUTDATED. Dream Focus 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete an article listing every locomotive past and present is not practical per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's just a list of the notable ones, which seems a lot more reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Most locomotives I’d think are notable, and in any case that’s a given on WP so the point still stands. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean most classes of locomotives? Google suggests there are over 350,000 individual ones in the world, they are surely not all notable. That seems very unlikely. If every class of locomotive is notable, I don't see a big problem. We have lists of poets, writers, singers, and the world has many of them. If the lists gets overwhelming, it can be split up later by year/name/country etc. CT55555 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  But it isn't a list of the notable ones, even if "notable" is being defined more narrowly than "is worthy of a Misplaced Pages article". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that notability is the exact definition of worthy of a[REDACTED] article, that's how we decide what gets articles, to me they are synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Categories are more appropriate for such a broad topic such as locomotives as a whole, as per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Thee are plenty of encyclopedoas of rail, or books about locomotives (just click the Google Books link above). So I think WP:LISTN is met. This is suprisingly abandoned, unreferenced, etc., but I think encyclopedic (within our scope). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. This needs improvement not deletion, but a list of individually notable locomotives (which seems to be what everything other than the New Zealand section lists) is clearly encyclopaedic per others above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  A list of all the individual locomotives that have articles on Misplaced Pages would be massive. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  If it became too massive, it could be split. This is not a reason to delete. Misplaced Pages has lots of long lists and editors are quite capable of dealing with that. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  As CT55555 says, splitting lists that get too large is standard editorial practice and almost always entirely uncontroversial. In this case splitting off by country for those countries with large numbers of individually notable locomotives while retaining inline those countries with only a handful will match the way many other lists on Misplaced Pages are organised. If you think that is a reason for deletion then you've completely misunderstood both the purpose of deletion and the general concept of lists on Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: categories not matched by list-articles can be horribly incomplete even re what Misplaced Pages covers: They omit articles which could/should be in a category, but just aren't. They omit redlinks. They omit items covered in lists within articles, such as a tabulation of locomotives within an article about a railway or a museum. They omit other significant mentions in regular articles, such as a town article mentioning a preserved locomotive in its park.

As an exercise just now, i did some analysis in Draft:List of preserved railroad locomotives in Colorado, identifying 49 items which should be in the system of categories. In fact i do see three in Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Colorado, yay. That's where i started my list from, actually. And there is one more that should be in that category but isn't, though it can be found by drilling down from Category:Locomotives in other ways. Categories omit one NRHP-listed one that is a redlink. But the categories completely miss 44 others that are individually tabulated within museum and railway articles. You cannot get to them.

Could the category system be fixed? Yes, by creating 44 redirects to the table rows, and putting appropriate categories on those redirects. But you cannot fix the categories if you don't have corresponding lists to work from. I !vote above that List of locomotives be kept and developed, and then all the categories can be improved. But assertions that existing categories "duplicate" what sensible explicit lists would include, are naive or just wrong, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'm not really inclined to create all 44 redirects and obsessively add categories to them; maybe i would for just the isolated ones in town articles or wherever so they will be noticeable, but not for the all those in groups at railway articles, say. But i would sorta "fix" the categories by adding mention, at the categories themselves, about the groups/lists that go towards "completing" them. It takes both to help each other get towards completeness of both. Having the explicit list out there attracts corrections, additions, too, as well as it advertises need to create missing articles. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's four more than the number listed on List of locomotives. And such a list would be impossibly long. It would need to instead be a list of lists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, i see what u mean: that the manufacturers and railways currently listed at List of locomotives don't include any of these Colorado preserved ones. I'm not sure if drilling through the Baldwin Locomotive Works diesel-only sublists could get to one or two Baldwins in Colorado (which might be steam), or not. But touché, your point is correct: the current categories are likely better than currently indexed lists.

I still wanna see sublists of locomotives by location (for preserved ones that are relatively fixed), and other sublists, all to be indexed from the top. I don't personally like renames of lists to "List of lists of..." format, like i am sure categorizers would refuse to have categories renamed to be "Categories of categories of...". But yes, top-level world-wide lists often have only sublists as members; individual items tend to show up in second or third or fourth levels along with more sublists. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that such lists would duplicate information from the pages on individual railways/museums/etc. , and unless obsessively maintained would quickly become outdated. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, not every preserved locomotive is individually notable, not every individually notable locomotive is preserved, not every preserved locomotive is preserved in its country of origin (e.g. LNER Class A4 4496 Dwight D Eisenhower) and not every preserved locomotive is preserved at a notable location by a notable organisation; most locomotives in a railway's fleet are not individually notable. This list would be a more comprehensive list of locomotives than that at any individual institution. Those lists, where they exist, would be referenced as sources of more detailed information.

The claim that this will become quickly out of date is both (a) not a reason on its own to delete a list, and (b) also not true - once a locomotive is notable it is always notable, facts like it's type, manufacturer, and country of origin never change and locomotives becoming newly individually notable does not happen very often. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

My point was that a list of locomotives by geographical location would quickly become outdated, as locomotives move around. If it was "list of preserved locomotives built for X company" it could work, but then it doesn't seem to make sense to have "list of locomotives" only include links to lists of preserved locomotives. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No one plans to limit the world-wide list of locomotives to cover just the preserved ones, or other relatively fixed ones. It is not currently limited that way. But some historic locomotives can be organized by nation where they operated, and some preserved ones in museums or on short tourist runs can be organized by more specific locations. Like for other sometimes moveable "places" on the US NRHP (eg buildings and covered bridges and other structures which do get moved sometimes, or objects such as ships, steamboats, or statues), it is not too hard to update locations occasionally when The General (locomotive) moves from one museum to another, or whatever. And we already deal with some "fuzzy" locations for some NRHP-listed locomotives that move between two terminuses of a line like the Cumbres one. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Also there already do exist categories of locomotives organized by location, and I don't see any movement to ban those. Also IMO it is far more likely for Misplaced Pages to learn of a move, from the public, if they can see an explicit list of locomotives in a given state, say. Then the location-type category for the locomotive will also get updated, too, when the locomotive item is transferred from one state's list to another's. It is far easier to check a list than a category.

Anyhow, this is getting into issues best handled by editors at relevant Talk pages.

I may not respond to much further here. -Doncram (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

By present geographical location is not the most sensible grouping for a list like this, however by country of origin (how it's currently organised) is. Regardless, a list needing to be updated every so often is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to split up a list of preserved locomotives in certain countries like the UK or US, though. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If the length of the list dictated it then they would be split off per WP:LISTSPLIT. None of the lists of preserved British locomotives confine themselves to individually notable locomotives (e.g. there are only 3 on List of preserved British industrial steam locomotives), but the existence of categories like Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives argues for the creation of an accompanying list and also for the retention of this high level summary list. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

How many lists are there that limit themselves to only stuff notable enough for a Wiki page while there are similar lists that list everything?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Lists limited to only stuff notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article are 10-a-penny. Many of them also have more detailed lists about narrower sub-topics that have broader inclusion criteria. List of people associated with rail transport is an example I found after about a minute searching, although not perfect as the inclusion criteria are not clear, there are many sublists of people associated with rail transport in specific ways, places and/or times. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is hardly a good example when it's also a rickety outdated shambles. An article that fits that definition that's actually maintained, please. It doesn't have to be rail-related. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Trainsandotherthings, this is an AFD proceeding, and you have not stated your !vote. I count the existing score as 5 !votes for "Delete" (counting the nominator), and 5 to "Keep". Your position, as I interpret it, is that you !vote "Keep". (Also, BTW, i think nominator User:Eldomtom2 should now state their view has changed to "Keep", perhaps as an amendment to the nomination-statement itself.) You do make observations that I interpret like "in a huge list that is split into many pages, the top-level list will probably best consist only of sublists, not any individual items" (i agree), and "so some could say that is a list of lists" (i agree, but note it is still a list), and maybe you want to rename the list-article (I don't agree, and a rename proposal is a different process for a different day). And maybe you have other editorial observations regarding organization, definition of list-item-notability, etc., which are suitable for the list-article's Talk page. For purpose of this AFD process, could you please just state "Keep" or "Delete"? Or not. Either way, i think that this is ready to be closed as "Keep" by a closer focused on the quality of the arguments. Although probably this will not be closed until June 29, after it has been open for 7 days. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think my view has changed to "Keep"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Week keep. I agree that this list is duplicated by (or even better addressed by) the category. I also observe that this article has not been seriously maintained at, well, any point in its history really. But in this case, we have an uncomplicated topic ("locomotives", not an "X of Y" type) that as far as I can tell does not present any problems if not kept up-to-the-minute - that is, any information (appropriately) added to it will never go out of date (it's "list of locomotives" not "list of locomotives currently in use"), and a lack of mention here isn't inherently misleading (eg, presumably no one will use this page to conclusively determine "what locomotives have ever existed" or "is x a locomotive"). I don't see the WP:LISTN fail here. There appears to be an editor willing to update and maintain this now, as well. Though I do think this would be more helpful to readers if it had a hatnote directing to Category:Locomotives - not sure what the best wording for that would be so I leave that to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• very weak keep WP:NOTDUP and WP:DINC, but also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I do think it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE though... -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. As some have noted, the subject list-article has been developed somewhat, now with some coverage of preserved locomotives by country. Update: I have converted what I was drafting as a list of preserved locomotives in Colorado, into a Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States. This so far includes most locomotives which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I intend to continue developing this, and get it to mainspace; it will be a sublist linked from this main list-article. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The list serves its purpose by bringing readers to either a locomotive page, or to a more detailed list where such a page could be found. I am aware of the category duplication issue, but it does not matter because it is not inherently problematic. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the list is focussed so it is no more of a directory than other lists. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• delete I really do not understand why people are so desperate to keep this incoherent, indiscriminate, ill-defined mess. It's not a list of locomotives, except for the parts at the end which are (and if we start listing all preserved locomotives, we're going to need several bigger articles). and the part that is lists of locomotive classes is mixed with a list of diesel locomotive models, and I lost track of whether electric locos are treated at all. And then we have locomotive types (e.g., mallets and Shays). I can see some point to some sort of list of lists article, but this is not it, and the only reason why this isn't one of the largest articles in the system is that nobody is putting a lot of effort into expanding it according to what it says it is. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, expanding the list of preserved locomotives towards covering a high percentage of those worldwide will indeed require splitting out several bigger articles. This is a good place to start from, IMHO. Yes, the mixture of locomotive "classes" within individual locomotives is confusing and can/should be addressed by editing (i.e. gradually move out the classes to a separate List of locomotive classes). Yes, electric locos are locos and are to be included. It is fine to mention all of these at talk page of list-article. I am making some effort to expand coverage to include all preserved individual locomotives. I personally have done all right, IMHO, with that kind of stuff, in developing many world-wide list-articles. Such as List of fire stations, say. --Doncram (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Another followup: Well the earlier sections do include links and other info regarding individual locomotives (e.g. the Great Western Railway section explicitly names 3440 City of Truro), and drilling down into some classes gets to mentions of individuals (e.g. NSB Class XXI mentions a preserved example depicted in File:Lok på Setesdalsbanen. Foto T Lunde (8632976429).jpg). But yeah "classes" and "models" may be mixed, and I myself don't yet understand the distinction, so I am not sure if it should be List of locomotive classes and models, or what, that should be split out from the "list of locomotives" if the latter is developed to cover individual locomotives only (Mangoe, perhaps you could comment on this at Talk?). --Doncram (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Article being in a poor state is not a good rationale for deletion per WP:Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I agree that a full list of all locomotives will obviously be unwieldly, but that is not a valid deletion rationale either. It just means, as several others have pointed out, that this will end up as a WP:List of lists if worked on. That it hasn't been worked on much, I also find surprising, but that too is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:Misplaced Pages is not finished. SpinningSpark 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Not a very comprehensive list/very random selection. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per Mangoe and Pi.1415926535. I doubt someone can keep this list trimmed, yet comprehensive in a long run. Categories serve a better purpose here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again no valid rationale for deletion is stated. Some readers like to navigate through categories. I and others much prefer explicit lists, which can provide some introduction, explain scope, show photos and sources, comment on comprehensiveness or lack thereof (which categories completely totally fail at), guide future development by including redlinks, etc. wp:CLNT is explicitly about how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary, and the existence of one is not an argument for deletion of another. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Listing of locomotive classes is certainly within Misplaced Pages's remit, as essentially every locomotive class is notable. Trying to fit every single class (or is it every single notable locomotive? still unclear what the scope is here) into a single article just isn't really possible. This article should be about either notable individual locomotives, or locomotive classes. Doing both is absurd. The article has become a confused mess because of the unclear scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Any list is about "notable" examples (whether meaning Misplaced Pages-notable which could have a valid separate article, or "list-item-notable"); the word does not need to be included in the title. What's possible or not, what should be done or not, are editing concerns, not an AFD concern. Of course all classes can be part of one list, and of course all individual locomotives can be part of another list, although yes both of those will have to be split for size reasons. Not my fault the contents included classes. I think i did edit the list-article slightly to clarify the current contents include both, but that does not mean I intend for the contents to stay that way. When you drill down into some of those items, sometimes you get to lists of classes, only, sometimes you get to individual locomotives, sometimes you get a mix. Sometimes an item is the sole locomotive built, like a prototype, of planned class, so they are the same. I have taken on developing "preserved locomotives" which are individual locomotives, and I will have to drill down into each of the ambiguous items to find individual locomotives to add. I personally am more interested in individual locomotives, akin to historic sites; could you perhaps be the one to develop a list of classes? Or, this list could be pared to drop the classes without moving them to a separate new list (although I agree that would be obviously notable); this is a matter for editors at the Talk page to decide. --Doncram (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment For what it's worth, I am finding that the categories in these areas are really poorly organized or maintained, and in the process of trying to develop Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States I am having to spend a lot of time fixing them, adding suitable categories to articles, etc. And, frankly, it would always be impractical if not impossible to check the contents of the categories and maintain/improve them, if there are not corresponding list-articles or sections. Also, it has been pointed out to me that many very short stub articles on individual locomotives have been created, in Draft space or otherwise, and I am creating rows for each one of those locomotives and redirecting the short stubs to the rows, using "id=" row anchors. It is seeming to me hugely helpful for Misplaced Pages to have proper list-articles developed here, instead of hopelessly unmanageable, awful, inaccurate, and incomplete categories, and zillions of bad stubs. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Locomotives, and retain the current formatting of only including notable topics in the list. This article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Concerns about the article size ballooning can easily be addressed by the performance of page WP:SPLITS if that occurs. Cheers, North America 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that the list is in a sorry state. WP:IMPERFECT. The list can certainly be improved and the list is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A consensus to delete is not going to form. A discussion on whether and where to merge can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

List of minor Mulliner characters

List of minor Mulliner characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PRODded by Jontesta (talk · contribs) with the following rationale, and endorsed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), but deprodded without explanation by DGG (talk · contribs).

Completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable third-party sources to establish notability for this topic. Almost all entries are simply a name and a profession. They have all been tagged for expansion since 2008 and safe to say that expansion isn't coming.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page they offered the following rationale, without providing explicit examples of reliable sources: multiple sources are available in the many books abot PG Wodehouse . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of minor Ukridge characters. Lists of not-individually-notable characters for a notable fictional franchise are entirely within WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • But that discussion ended in merge, not keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• In addition to the two encyclopedic sources listed at the end, there are 19 substantial biographies in English, most of which discuss at least briefly every story. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Such characters can deserve to have their own list. Agletarang (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of minor Ukridge characters which established that such characters do not warrant a stand-alone list on Misplaced Pages. The mentioned biographies of the author do not cover these characters with WP:SIGCOV. As stated in the WP:PROD, there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic in direct detail, and as each entry has been tagged for almost 15 years, it's safe to say that the sources are not coming. Jontesta (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect, I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST. But we do have List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters#Mr._Mulliner. Merge all referenced parts there. Oh, well. There're no footnotes. Sigh. Low quality fancruft, just redirect there. PS. Initially I wrote "delete" due to OR - who decides who is a minor character? Would support a merge to a List of Mulliner characters but that article doesn't exist... seriously, what were some folks thinking starting a "minor" list before even trying to make a proper list for non-minor characters? In general, lists of minor Foo characters all need to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, or Redirect. Given the comment above about coverage in biographies, I checked three: P.G. Wodehouse, a biography (Donaldson); Wodehouse : a life (McCrum); and P. G. Wodehouse : a portrait of a master (Jasen) and found very little discussion of any Mulliner stories in them, and certainly no discussion of the Mulliner characters listed in the article. DGG, could you provide an example or two? I'd love to be persuaded to change my mind as I'm a huge fan of Wodehouse. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Not only does this fail WP:LISTN, but most (if not all) of these characters are already listed at Mr. Mulliner#Known relatives, making this an unnecessary spinout. Rorshacma (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect- There's no indication that this meets, or ever can meet, WP:LISTN. It's almost entirely unsourced, and what little referencing there is, is of very low quality. As pointed out by Jontesta, this has been tagged as unsourced for 15 years which means it's unlikely that the required sources exist. I have been unable to find anything useful except for the works of fiction themselves, and that isn't enough. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

the crterion is sourcable, not currently unsourced. DGG ( talk ) 05

19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep and oppose merge/redirect. Clearly passes WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV per DGG and JClemens. AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi 4meter4 and DGG. Please could you provide any examples of WP:SIGCOV? As mentioned above, I'm keen to be persuaded to change my vote. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what prompted the "AFDISNOTCLEANUP" quip, as neither the nomination nor any of the delete !votes in any way try to use AfD as cleanup. Is it just a thought-terminating cliche? Reyk _YO! 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect as this is not an issue of cleanup, but numerous unsourced sections that cannot be expanded with reliable sources. Most of these have been tagged for almost 15 years and still no one has found sources that can meet the WP:GNG. Would support deletion, but other similar article ended with a redirect, to leave open the possibility of expanding the subject at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages deletion sorting
• Misplaced Pages lists
• WikiProject Lists