This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Keep: This article is a helpful reference and serves a navigational purpose. The list's notability is only a minor concern. Lists of films by major studios, such as Columbia Pictures, document cultural history and provide insight into cinematic trends of a specific era. These lists do not need additional sources to meet the notability guidelines. They are notable because they include famous films, and the studio is famous.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.
There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak💬15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([1][2]), LA Times ([3][4], WaPo ([5][6]), NYP ([7]), Politico ([8]), USA Today ([9]), Newsweek ([10]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([11]).
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]
Keep Well sourced info, focusing on what is most relevant to the denizens of Planet Earth rather than on every solar object show these list articles are clearly not a directory of everything in the universe. I can think of better ways to organize the information, but that's clearly an editorial decision rather than a NOT issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listing all the star systems in one list would be too long, so this is a logical way to divide them. Valid encyclopedic information. DreamFocus18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All these lists are very useful, provide navigation into pages and have valuable information, hence satisfy the purpose of a list. Don't see any violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY here, it would be a violation if we were listing all stars up to thousands of light-years e.g. List of star systems within 5,000–5,500 light-years, which is not the case.
Comment: the number of stars on each page should increase roughly with the cube of the distance, so the later lists are clearly incomplete. A cut-off mark for building these lists is lacking; the local neighborhood of the Sun is variously defined from 12 pc out to 2 kpc, so these could extend our quite a ways. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list article comprehensively fails WP:LISTCRITERIA on the basis the article is a list of inter-wiki links to Norwegian Wikipedia.
Looking at the linked articles on NO:WP, they seem to just consist of a table of shooting ranges with name, municipality and the lat/long (which links to GeoHack).
So what we have is a list of links to pages on another wiki, which would themselves fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY here.
This is fine on no.wp if it meets their GNG. On en.wp it does not.
There's no encyclopaedic content there worth importing to en.wp which would help this page meet WP:GNG. I don't see how this page meets (or could ever meet) notability unless it could be rewritten to cover some unique or special feature of Norwegian shooting ranges that marks them out from ranges anywhere else in the world (if such a feature exists, which it probably doesn't).
I don't think any argument can be made that the no.wp links are just placeholding until equivalent articles can be created on en.wp because I can't see how a page like this would past LISTCRITERIA on en.wp. It's interesting and useful information... but for some sort of geo project. It's not encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles that do nothing but link to articles on other language wikis that would not be approved as an article here. Reywas92Talk13:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping Gvssy. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch☎✎18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the rationale for deletion here? A list of episodes is a very common page type for a TV show. Why would it need to be deleted? Toughpigs (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agee with @Toughpigs there should be no limit on episode numbers to create a new episode list I have seen shows that have less than 12 episode split into new pages. Anime9000 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVSPLIT was created in 22 Feb 2007 and the episode list for first Pretty Cure series was created in 22 Nov 2004 so there was no limit of episodes in order to put episodes into new page. I am sure older editors don't know this rule from MOS:TVSPLIT. Even some of the split the episodes list into new seasons pages with only 12 episode per page. Anime9000 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this line "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone" means they don't need to follow guidelines or policies. That is why users create episodes list into new pages because they don't follow WP:TVSPLIT guideline even though the episode number is really short. A lot of anime series that have 24 episodes have episode list page separate from main article. Anime9000 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say you want to create a new episode list page for a new anime that has 12 episodes and say it will improve the article but goes against WP:TVSPLIT guideline. The user will say I will use WP:IAR to ignore the TVSPLIT guideline. Anime9000 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure a lot of users don't even know the policies and guideline because it's hidden and I never knew there were guidelines and policies because it was never mentioned when you create an account because Wikipedia has no firm rule. Anime9000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. I don't see a BLAR edit war here. There was one BLAR, it was reverted, and the article stabilized. In the future, should probably wait for multiple BLAR attempts before sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as redirect: I know that the Pretty Cure series has a bunch of episode lists, although not all of them follow the MOS:TVSPLIT guideline, and this article is no exception. May do something about these lists in the future but for now this should be a redirect. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are usually made whenever a show ends. So, leave it as a redirect until a new PreCure season starts airing next year. Same with the recent Sentai and Rider seasons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is the episode list going to be merged back onto the series page? I don't understand why this is being called a deletion or a redirect, rather than a merge. Toughpigs (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use this stop a WP:BLAR since it happened in the last series Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. This was the link to Soaring Sky Pretty Cure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Soaring_Sky!_Pretty_Cure_episodes The AFD (Articles For Deletion) can be used for discussing WP:BLAR The Pretty Cure series always had episode list split into new page @BaldiBasicsFan wants to make the episodes back to main page article page. A lot of people will know that this series will have more episodes than 12 maybe up to 50 episodes which will be enough to do an episode split. I did calc for readable Prosize all the pretty cure series including episode list had more 50kB to split the episode into new page WP:TVSPLIT they said each episode summary should be 1kb Anime9000 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an easy problem to solve. #1) Merge the 12-episode page back to the show's page; #2) When there are more seasons of the show, split it out to a separate page again. What is the disagreement? Toughpigs (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While technically the list is currently short enough to merge back in right now, this is an long airing series so it'll have to be split out pretty quickly anyways. Better to save valuable editor time to keep it split even if its early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime1990 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, this split was done a bit too early, and the contents needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but what's the point of shoving the episode list back into the main article again if it's going to being spun out either way in a matter of weeks? The main problem is more: deciding and reaching consensus when the right time is (in terms of season progression and episode list size) to split off an episode list. See also: WP:SIZERULE which might be a better rule of thumb, also the anime MoS. Any other of the 20 prior seasons also have separate 'List of xyz Pretty Cure' episodes' lists, splitting off its episode lists was more of a given, eventually. Cubchring8000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪99°08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):
Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace『1992–1995』with "1992".
World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace『1941–1945』with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".
A flag of Koča's Serbia used during the Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791.
Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
"Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.
The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:
Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]
In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamitedbyCzar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. as the article creator indicates they no longer need this page as well as those editors arguing for Deletion. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Article creator Ridiculopathy is still a relatively new editor who has made good contributions and didn't fully understand the rules around WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. We discussed this on my Talk page (since archived). I would send it back to user space to give the editor a chance to salvage the sections worth saving for another article (and most likely rename a subset of the draft or just get it deleted it when they're done). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cielquiparle, I've taken the necessary sources off it and am satisfied to let it be deleted now it needs be. I'd self delete it myself but am away from my laptop at present. Thanks Ridiculopathy (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to userfying, but I'm skeptical there are enough sources which treat these as a group. It doesn't appear there are any in the article itself yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Perumbavoor#Educational organisations with the option of merging useful content. There is clear consensus against a standalone list here, but consensus isn't clear on whether content should be merged, and to where. Given the short article, I believe that can be handled through normal editing procedures. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per WP:CSC is a textbook application: These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm - The couple of notable entries in this list already have their own individual articles, and the remainder are non-notable topics that are either poorly sourced or have no sources at all outside of Dr. Who itself. The overall topic of Dr. Who being notable does not mean that lists of random, vaguely related topics can't also fall under being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to individual redirects being created, as suggested by Pokelego999. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I have no idea what this proposal is asking a closer to do ("retarget"?). Is it an argument to Keep this article? I'm not concerned with items on this list, I need to know what should happen to this specific article, in its totality. It's Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify, those are your options from a closer's point of view. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz In this case, those arguing delete/retarget is asking for the closer to delete the article, I believe, while the redirects are sorted out individually on the editor side of things, though to any editors who voted Delete and disagree, feel free to speak your minds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - I am arguing to Delete this list outright. But, if someone wanted to, separate from the closing of this AFD, create a Redirect from Chameleon Circuit to Tardis, etc., then I would have no problem with that. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article feels like a victim of the times. It was created 15 years ago, when streaming services were nascent and Netflix's only existed in the United States. Now, there are lots of flavors of internet TV, from on-demand streaming services like Netflix etc. to virtual MVPDs that mirror the cable bundle and free ad-supported streaming television that is typically a series of linear channels. The page size graph mirrors this explosion: from 2015 to 2017, it grew from 8 kB to 35 kB, and it went from 47 to 64 kB in the last two years. We have hit a point where a list presents more maintenance load than it is worth. WP:CLN notes, Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. This, I believe, has happened to the topic as a result of secular growth. Category:Internet television streaming services was created in 2018 and has some 130 entries. Someone should review the entries in the list and look to see that relevant ones are in that category. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like stealth WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, as there are too many games with gyro features to reliably list without it being undue effort for editors, including games that use gyro controls for completely trivial things, like emoting in Bloodborne. It is also written like an essay. This is the kind of over-listification we don't need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.
I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.
I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.
I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.
If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.
If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.
I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.
Is anyone reading the actual page or any of my comments? The Wii does not have a gyro sensor. A very limited list of games of that platform would be included on the list, more precisely 54 of 2560 games. This is written in the "Platform" section. The Wii Remote Wiki page also states the same information. In fact, the list that is already there, already includes most of the games that would qualify to be on that list, and that is certainly not every Wii game or every Switch game.
I would understand if the concern was that the explanation given on the article leaves room for this kind of misconception, so a solution would be to simply refine what's already there. But so far, the deletion requests are coming from people who don't know what Gyro is, this is a baseless concern, that is already addressed in the page itself, that only goes to show how people could benefit from the information contained on this article. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the term gyroscope peppered through the Wii Remote article, so I'm not sure I'm following how that's not a "gyro feature", but regardless, that was a relatively small part of my overall argument that would still stand even if the Wii is somehow not relevant. Sergecross73msg me23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick correction: Only Wii Remote Plus or Wii Remote's Motion Plus accessory has gyroscope capabiltiies. Actual usage of gyorscope in Wii titles are rare (obviously) and it's often a requirement for these titles, but on top of my head: Wii Sports Resort and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.
The Wii Remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, uses only an accelerometer and an IR sensor. Gyro was indeed introduced later with the Motion Plus accessory, so the list of games that support this accessory is very limited. So no, not every Wii game uses gyro, Motion Controls (accelerometer) and Motion Controls (Gyroscopes) are 2 different things that lead to different results.
Regardless, as I said above. I understand the concern with the scope of this article, I feel the biggest problem is in the premise being too broad. If this article was called "List of console games with gyro aim", would that help? It would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library, low effort mobile games and VR games, thus clearing up any confusion with the title and premise. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, still multiple issues to address:
This article uses a lot of unreliable/unusable sources. For example, any wikis would fail WP:USERG. That all needs to go.
Every entry needs to be reliably sourced. See WP:VG/S for the sorts of sources that are usable or unusable. Are we really going to be able to do this with this subject?
Lists should meet WP:NLIST. That requires better sourcing too. Are there WP:VG/S approved sources that do this?
I have serious concerns about all of these points, especially since, by your own admission, gyro is such a poorly documented feature. That is absolutelynot a way one would want to describe the subject of their Wikipedia article. Sergecross73msg me00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Usually everything about gyro is documented by the community, because the stigma around this feature is enough for it to not be listed anywhere in any official capacity. I can try to address these issues, but if I can't, I guess I will have to search for another place to do this. Thank you so much for your time and for being the only person to actually reply to anything I asked on this site. I sent multiple messages throughout the process to my "mentor" to make sure if I wasn't falling on these pitfalls, and no one answered. Anyway, Thank you! Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move – after figuring out "gyros" isn't referring to Greek cuisine (somehow I totally misread the title at first), I think the prose section could be a good starting point for an article about gyroscopes in video games (after some major cleanup), but the list section is too indiscriminate. For the few games where gyroscopic features are particularly relevant, they could be discussed in prose. So I would support moving to draftspace, but only if the article is overhauled with a different focus and the article title is changed to the general topic instead of a list. AL2009man's suggestion of Gyroscopic control (gaming) would work, as would something like Gyroscopes in video games. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirecttoLiverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyerT·C15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no not merge. The featured article Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page. SportingFlyerT·C14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other articles violate WP:NOTDIRECTORYorWP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory. SportingFlyerT·C20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Joseph2302: you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Every single team that has played in Europe has one of these tables somewhere. Liverpool's is just the one that's been WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyerT·C22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: I can't see how you can apply NOSTATS as a delete argument. The stats are explained in Liverpool F.C. in international football, therefore WP:NOSTATS is technically an invalid delete argument as clearly stated by the fact on NOSTATS it says. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. So they are explained in the previous article. As for NOTDIRECTORY, that's kind of a grey area really, are you considering the list of matches a directory? The question it asks on that topic Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. Liverpool football club is certainly a notable topic, so is Liverpool football club in Europe, how about their games, there are many in the list that are highly notable. The main problem with the list is that each row needs a source. So again, how much thought did you put towards wanting to delete the article?? Regards Govvy (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. StarMississippi13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. StarMississippi18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when an editor editors familiar with our notability guidelines offers are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen×☎21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412T21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen×☎12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412T21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
