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:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
watch |
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people
Lists
List of Zubeen Garg live performances
- List of Zubeen Garg live performances (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)
While the addition of subsequent live performances since the deleted version keeps this from being a G4, Discographymen essentially created the same article that was deleted. The factors that led to the deletion do not appear to have changed as there's no indication the performances were notable. While I would not be opposed to a redirect (protected, to stop re-creation) I am opposed to a merge as this information isn't encyclopedic in addition to not being notable. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, and India. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
List of mosques
- List of mosques (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)
Merge request at Talk:Lists of mosques#Merge proposal that did not seek to merge any content. Their rationale implies that the content is not worthy of being merged, so it is within the scope of AfD.
List of mosques serves no useful purpose. It's clearly too vague to ever be a viable list article per WP:SALAT (e.g. there's no List of church buildings either, as far as I can see). This is a function accomplished by Category:Mosques. The list has no proper inclusion criteria: the lead states "some of the more famous mosques", but that's obviously unhelpful, there's little about the current list that suggests the additions are being limited to "famous" mosques, and even if we tried to enforce such a criteria it would inevitably be an unclear POV mess; anything can be "famous" from a certain POV, and "notable" would by definition include every Wikipedia mosque article (which, again, is what categories are for). There are of course almost no sources in that article either, despite the many additional claims inserted into the list. All of this makes it incompatible with the guidelines outlined at WP:STANDALONE. The only useful version of this would be an article that links to more precise lists of mosques. This already exists here at Lists of mosques (notwithstanding some needed improvements). Two articles with such similar titles are also likely to cause confusion and they already look like WP:CONTENTFORKs of each other. Therefore, List of mosques should simply redirect here.
— User:R Prazeres 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per the above. Indeed I only proposed as merge because I thought a blank-and-redirect would fall under that type of proposal, but deleting (with or without redirect) addresses the problem too. R Prazeres (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
KeepThis can survive, and quite possibly should, as a list-of-lists, assuming someone wants to make sub-lists, say for per-nation mosque lists, which can in turn be lists of per-province mosque lists. Absent that, a comprehensive list in one file doesn't seem to be terribly useful or maintainable. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original merge proposal copied above.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, easy to miss! R Prazeres (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I appear to have missed the hatnote. Carry on. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, is that not what Lists of mosques is? (That was the context of the original merge proposal copied above.) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I got confused by the similar titles but while lists of mosques is a navigational list this one isn't. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep One of the most spurious nominations I've ever seen, to be honest. Category:Lists of religious building lists even has a container category for these sorts of pages, and the See Also section functions similarly to other pages in that category. This is really a speedy keep in my book - deleting this is completely non-sensical. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lists of mosques. Upon further review, this article and that article are functional duplicates. I did not read the entirety of the nomination statement, which I thought was making an incorrect argument that mosques should be categorised instead, and that we were deleting the master article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. It seems pretty uncontroversial that the two articles should simply be merged using Lists of mosques as the title, which appears has been largely done already. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Lists of mosques per the above. I would have supported a straight redirect if the Lists article didn't list some individual mosques as well, but there indeed are individual mosques listed on the Lists article. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history
- List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history (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)
The article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT as the topic itself should not be an encyclopedic article. A deletion discussion for a similar article has already passed a year ago and its conclusions are very good. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton
- List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton (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)
Reasoning: Other AfDs including for the multi-list AfD against Damon Hill Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill have established the precedent that these lists are both WP:CRUFT and fail WP:LISTN as being needless forks of existing lists, they also have no notable group or set presence within discussions as shown by a lack of these such sources in the articles. Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus. The same discussion has also been ongoing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Talk:Max Verstappen
When creating this deletion request, articles
- List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Alain Prost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article, the original is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Nomination by IP: 159.242.125.170 (talk)
- I vote delete per the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen — Iadmc♫talk 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Lists. — Iadmc♫talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have fixed this nomination to actually use {{subst:afd2}}, rather than just {{la}} on its own. No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all bases on the current consensus on this subject which follows WP:CFORK and WP:LISTN.Tvx1 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The main difference between these drivers and the other subjects which were deleted is that these are all three-or-more-time World Champions who should be expected to have more wins and coverage than the others. I would personally reject WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments such as those raised by the nom and above delete !voters that these drivers fall under a consensus based on the others. If these are kept, I would also support looking at taking the Verstappen list to DRV for recreation. The main difference between now the the Verstappen AfD is that he too is now a three-time World Champion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, @159.242.125.170:, you need to tag all of the articles you wish to bundle, not just notify on the talk pages. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Will try, very hard to do multi-page AfDs properly as an unregistered user my apologies!
- I agree that Verstappen is more notable than at the time of his AfD, but the fundamental issue is that we have no way of currently defining notability. If this AfD fails, hopefully it can set that precedent, if it doesn't then we know the issue is with the format not having proven notability.
- You cite these are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but I counter that I do not point to them being deleted and say that because they were deleted these should be - instead I am pointing to the logic behind them and the comments on the AfDs where many explicitly called for an AfD against these lists also. The arguments against all of these lists were made in those AfDs, hence why I have referenced them. I do believe there should be some level of consistency in how these lists exist, and if this AfD fails I will propose the creation of any articles which would logically follow (if it is three time champions, I will try and create lists for them, if it is drivers who have X number of wins, same again) but I'm not sure that these pass WP:CRUFT , WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS.
- The size of the grouping doesn't mean it necessitates a list - Wikipedia doesn't need a list of the list of winners of your local egg and spoon race no matter how good Mr Eggman is as the 12 time champion. Unless we can show that these articles pass WP:LISTN - "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."
- If we could get 3 sources for each driver where a reliable third party, such as a newspaper of record or the like, was discussing their wins (be it listing the drivers' dominance across those, or be it ranking some of their wins perhaps?) than I would be willing to concede WP:LISTN .
- Also I wish to note, Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen was denied just 2 weeks before his 3rd title, so I'm not sure that has had an impact on my claimed consensus so far.
- I also remind the guidelines on WP:OTHERSTUFF do state:
- "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." 159.242.125.170 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, @159.242.125.170:, you need to tag all of the articles you wish to bundle, not just notify on the talk pages. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, firstly, I am disappointed that the nominator did not follow recommend courtesy, and notify substantial contributors to these articles, as suggested (but not required) in the AfD process. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for causing your disappointment, but sadly I am not very well accustomed with the process and tried to reach out to people who had been involved in such suggestions in previous AfDs. I hope personal disappointment will not factor into this however. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- (also, Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies I hope I am tasty ) 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for causing your disappointment, but sadly I am not very well accustomed with the process and tried to reach out to people who had been involved in such suggestions in previous AfDs. I hope personal disappointment will not factor into this however. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the wins by these drivers are extremely notable. Using Senna as an example: whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com, Sky Sports for example. While these win are listed in the parent articles, that is only as part of their complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of these articles. These lists allow interested readers to compare and contrast those victories. The lists meet the criteria for a Stand-alone list, given the length of the parent articles. The articles follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu. I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that lists such as these are common across the encyclopedia, and form part of the current 'meta'. With regards to the WP:NOTSTATS argument; that says that the encyclopedia should not have "excessive listings of unexplained statistics": indeed, I would suggest that by having these as standalone lists means that we are better able to provide the suitable context to avoid them being "unexplained statistics": many of the tables in the "Racing records" sections of drivers articles are more in contravention of that particular guideline than these articles, in my opinion. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can see your argument for keeping Senna, but few other drivers are used in such a way. As I discussed earlier in this thread, if we can find sources for these lists to be notable as a set as you have done for Senna then that may warrant their inclusion on WP:LISTN - and I would agree that the racing record section can be overwhelming but without much intention to suggest they should be removed.
- As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'm not sure how useful it is because for example Rooney has many independent sources referencing the goals as a set. I can't say I've seen the same for Prost, maybe not even for any driver outside of Senna. Other than the fact it is a very long list, the group of Hamilton's impressive tally is rarely talked about at which point I would compare it to creating an article of "Letters in antidisestablishmentarianism" which is impressive because the list is so long, but aside from that, is not notable. This is an extreme but still, just because other WikiProjects have done something doesn't mean Formula One should for example. It also raises the question as to what the notability criteria should be, if we are to keep these: what level of notability makes Prost worth keeping? 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, ladmc and Tvx1. These all are best integrated in main articles. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - just repeating data already presented at the home article of the driver in the career results sections. --Falcadore (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all - they are all valid WP:SIZESPLITs of their respective articles, keeping said articles from being too hard to navigate and read. Merging all should also be considered by delete !voters, especially since SpacedFarmer's rationale is basically a merge !vote, not a delete !vote. But again, we're risking making these articles
too long and clunky
(per WP:NOMERGE). The LISTCRUFT essay does not apply here when these are split from their respective articles, not standalone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, England, and Brazil. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All of them are the same as the many other such articles for sports people. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople If it won't fit in their main article, then a split off article is justified. We do the same when listing the accomplishments of actors and musicians, if their awards don't all fit in their main article, you make a side article to list them. Dream Focus 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: These are all redundant forks of information already found at the main articles for these subjects. Let'srun (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List of feature film series with three entries
- List of feature film series with three entries (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)
Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.
This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:
- List of feature film series with more than twenty entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with 11 to 20 entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with ten entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with nine entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with eight entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with seven entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with six entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with five entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of feature film series with four entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)
- In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."
- From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping."
Can they? Not for direct-to-video stuff certainly. The current list puts Stargate in the same series as the couple direct-to-video films based on the TV series. Those aren't really a series. Who decides?"There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions."
I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the edge cases are here, and the thing is, requiring editors to hash them out is asking them to engage in OR, which was the basis of my delete !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, so what? None of that is relevant to my objection. The topic of "list of film series by how many are grouped together in a wikipedia article" is pretty obviously not a valid list topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The size isn't the issue, and it's disingenuous of you to set up such a straw man to argue against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Final comment. Moving forward, I think the only reasonable list you could have in this place (as alluded to for the MCU by Erik above) is simply an index to WP articles on film series/franchises, without any attempt to decide what gets included exactly. No editor OR is needed. There's no need to apply different standards to different types of series/franchises (see the godforsaken Stargate example above, just one of many like this). You simply get a list of overarching articles, which should discuss any case-specific nuances in prose, and can list related entries without really having to make any sort of decision about if it's truly part of a "series" or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen irredeemably synthetic listcruft in my day, and this isn't it. The question of which films to count together in a series is unambiguous and source-able in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's obvious up until reliable sources contest it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw, this was an AfD made in haste without taking into consideration its use as an organizational list. Oopsies. Would someone be able to close as withdrawn by nominator? jellyfish ✉ 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have the IP address who still argues for deletion. So I think the rules state it must remain open for the full 7 days, even though its obviously a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Film festivals in Pristina
- Film festivals in Pristina (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)
Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe Rename List of film festivals in Kosovo and remove really non-notable events and add other festivals held in Kosovo. As for the fact that
none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city
...hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about. Not opposed to a plain keep (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/kosovo/articles/the-5-best-festivals-in-kosovo ; https://prishtinainsight.com/kosovo-film-festivals-to-go-ahead-despite-covid-19/ ; https://www.google.com/search?q=Film+festivals+in+Pristina+-wikipedia&sca_esv=ee8b71f1efd28755&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=sRBoZt6IM-Dbi-gP5I-D-Aw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiepfbFltOGAxXg7QIHHeTHAM8Q8tMDegQIBBAE&biw=871&bih=496&dpr=2 etc.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Honan 1938
- Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Honan 1938 (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)
Identical subject and content to Order of battle for campaign of northern and eastern Henan 1938, but with the Wade-Giles romanization of Henan ("Honan"). Can be safely turned into a redirect. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Japan. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. This is baffling. The same editor, User:Asiaticus, created the "Honan" version on 15 February 2007, and then created the "Henan" version on 2 April 2008? Did they forget they'd made one already and simply create a new version based on the same sources? There are slight discrepancies, but since the Henan version has better sourcing I favor keeping that one. Toadspike [Talk] 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect since this seems to be completely identical barring the romanization spelling Claire 26 (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure how this article should be kept. Support redirect. Dympies (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect, identical topic and mostly content. Fulmard (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Rashmika Mandanna
- List of awards and nominations received by Rashmika Mandanna (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 article sets a bad precendent. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani. Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. No need to delete this article, only merge it back to Rashmika Mandanna. The number of awards and nominations seem dubious here [1], might just be fan work. DareshMohan (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Too soon and too short. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Awards, Lists, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mergeinto Rashmika Mandanna: no need for a separate article. PamD 10:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Rashmika_Mandanna#Awards_and_nominations. This do not have to be separate page. RangersRus (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Too soon and not much content for a separate page yet. Yupsguts (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Rashmika Mandanna: Per Kailash29792. Charliehdb (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mergeinto Rashmika Mandanna.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Not so big as of yet. Azuredivay (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Electoral firsts in Guernsey
- Electoral firsts in Guernsey (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:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
List of conflicts in Canada
- List of conflicts in Canada (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to
- List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
- List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
- List of battles in Belgium Draftified
- List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
- List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
- List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
- List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
- List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)
- List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present
- List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)
- List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918
- List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present
- Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present
- NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
- @Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
List of preserved Boeing aircraft
- List of preserved Boeing aircraft (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)
It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.
- Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?
- It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.
- It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.
that is not a justification for deletion
- Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of transcluded template? Noha307 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
List of WHA broadcasters
- List of WHA broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- comment so, if this list is up for deletion, why not include all the other broadcaster lists from other leagues and other sports? Examples List of current National Hockey League broadcasters, List of Edmonton Oilers broadcasters, Historical NHL over-the-air television broadcasters, List of historical Major League Baseball television broadcasters, and List of historical NBA over-the-air television broadcasters. There are lots of other similar list artices.
I'm leaning towards keep for this article unless it can be made clear why this article should be deleted and the others kept.Masterhatch (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)- Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- After I posted that comment, I had looked at SpacedFarmers edit history and saw that he is in fact nominating multiple similar articles and that he wasn't just picking on some obscure WHA article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Subjects fails WP:LISTN. Individual parts might be sourced, but as a whole they fail notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This fails to meet the criteria set by WP:NLIST as the broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The World Hockey Association like the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association in professional basketball, is an essential part of the overall history of the National Hockey League. Like was the case with the prior ABA–NBA merger, four of the WHA's franchises were absorbed into the NHL. Television and radio media coverage are for better or worse, an essential part of a sports league's history. The WHA may or may not, have sped up NHL's expansion process. As the story goes, NHL showed little to no interest in any expansion until it was informed in 1965 that without expansion, it would not receive a network television deal. So fearing the loss of television revenues and the emergence of a rival league in the WHA, the NHL expanded to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. This Sports Illustrated article from June 1973 notes that the WHA in contrast to the NHL's then recent problems, could be have stronger bargaining power in negotiating television contracts. So all in all, how exactly is it merely and little more than "listcruft" to discuss the WHA's media history? It's noted in the article that CBS aired some of the WHA's games for a brief while during the early 1970s. Meanwhile, this book excerpt, briefly discusses whether or not the New England (later Hartford) Whalers games were blacked out WKBG whenever the Boston Bruins of the NHL were at home. Also, noteworthy is that the Michigan Stags where unable to secure a television deal (except for a one-off broadcast on WXON Channel 20 in 1974). Here's an article from The New York Times from 1975 on the Michigan Stags' troubles: W.H.A. Outlook Brighter Despite Stags’ Collapse BornonJune8 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List of Sports Illustrated writers
- List of Sports Illustrated writers (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)
Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[2]] and [[3]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
List of ESPN personalities
- List of ESPN personalities (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)
Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and [[7]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
List of ESPN Radio personalities
- List of ESPN Radio personalities (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)
Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], and [[11]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
List of past ESPN personalities
- List of past ESPN personalities (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)
Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This group has been covered in secondary sources, such as [[12]], [[13]] and [[14]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- News articles of 'personalities' being laid off, just a small selection of this list. Doesn't have much relations with it though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the entire grouping needs to be covered for WP:NLIST to be met. If you want a wider selection covered, there is [[15]]. Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not forgetting alls under WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not the entire grouping needs to be covered for WP:NLIST to be met. If you want a wider selection covered, there is [[15]]. Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- News articles of 'personalities' being laid off, just a small selection of this list. Doesn't have much relations with it though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of ESPN personalities. I agree with Let'srun that there are indeed sources to attribute to this, but the past can merge with the main article. No need to fork it. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Let'srun. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Agree on keeping, the topic has received coverage in secondary sources. Waqar💬 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players
- List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players (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:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
List of Saint George S.C. players
- List of Saint George S.C. players (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)
No evidence this list of self-selected players meets the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Zero notability, a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is the top football team in Ethiopia, and is well sourced. I fail to see why WP:LISTN doesn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep—I tend to agree with SportingFlyer. I'm not sure how this can be see has having "zero notability" if it is the best football team in Ethiopia. It is also universally discussed "as a group or set" by nature, working it into the threshold of WP:NLIST. I think this falls under WP:BIAS to a large degree, as well. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The club was founded in 1935 and such a list would purport to include players from the club's entire existence. There is a huge WP:V barrier that I don't see this list overcoming. How to verify which players played for Saint George SC, how many matches (i.e. who surpassed the 50-match mark, 100, 250 etc.) and when? To me that would seem equally impossible as maintaining and updating the list. Finally, deleting it removes nothing of value, as a category does the job much better. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket
- List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket (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)
T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. –
Hilst [talk]
20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) - Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with your suggestion is another factor:
- Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.
- There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. RoboCric Let's chat 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV
- List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (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)
Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
- For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- "I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs)
- Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that
WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links.
so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that
- Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
List of ESPNews personalities
- List of ESPNews personalities (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)
Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
List of battles in England
- List of battles in England (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:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to
- List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
- List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
- List of battles in Belgium Draftified
- List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
- List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
- List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
- List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.
- The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.
- The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? ToadetteEdit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- delete per running consensus. Not everything British is notable, and knowing the kings of England and quoting the fights historical will only get you so far. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The consensuses in the other discussions raise the same issues found here, and given that, I don't see a compelling reason why England should be treated differently. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Mangoe & JoelleJay above. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
List of Fantastic Beasts characters
- List of Fantastic Beasts 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)
There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.
- Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.
- And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [16], [17], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [18], [19], and with a fun bit of analysis, [20]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden:
there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article
: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden:
- Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [18], [19], and with a fun bit of analysis, [20]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)- Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:ATD. The article is poorly sourced, but a clean-up and merge offers a way to arrive at a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The argument for deletion only lists surmountable problems. In my opinion, it is the cast member list that should be merged here, not vice-versa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment We can't close this discussion as a reverse merge as the other article has not been tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and most participants have just commented about the article nominated, not a separate article. That would have to be a separate, new Merge discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment on merge target Cast and characters are different topics. Character lists for fictional franchise exist across many more topics than do those for lists of cast members, since many representations (books, manga, etc.) have no cast members and others (animation) have only voice cast. Merging this into the cast members article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Comparison of photo stitching software
- Comparison of photo stitching software (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)
Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.
- What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
- The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
- Coleman, Alex (September 21, 2023). "Best Panorama Stitching Software for Photography". Photography Life.
- "Best panorama stitching software: Retouching Forum: Digital Photography Review". www.dpreview.com.
- "What is the best photo stitching software to use in 2024? | Skylum Blog". skylum.com.
- "8 Best Photo Stitching Software for Making Panoramas [2024]". www.movavi.com.
- "10 Best Photo Stitching Software in 2024 (Updated)". expertphotography.com. November 8, 2021.
- "Top Photo Stitching Software for Breathtaking Panoramas". Cole's Classroom. December 7, 2020.
- "9 Best Photo Stitching Software To Create Panorama Images". carlcheo.com.
- People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.
- The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?
- Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.
- These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
- Mehta, Jalpa D.; Bhirud, S. G. (May 31, 2011). Pise, S. J. (ed.). "Image stitching techniques". Springer India. pp. 74–80. doi:10.1007/978-81-8489-989-4_13 – via Springer Link.
- Montabone, Sebastian; Pohlmann, Frank; MacDonald, Brian; Andres, Clay; Anglin, Steve; Beckner, Mark; Buckingham, Ewan; Cornell, Gary; Gennick, Jonathan; Hassell, Jonathan; Lowman, Michelle; Moodie, Matthew; Parkes, Duncan; Pepper, Jeffrey; Pundick, Douglas; Renow-Clarke, Ben; Shakeshaft, Dominic; Wade, Matt; Welsh, Tom; Markham, Jim; Moore, Ralph, eds. (May 31, 2009). Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers. Apress. pp. 205–234. doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-2842-4_9 – via Springer Link.
- Benzar, Julia (May 31, 2012). "Hardware and Software for Panoramic Photography". www.theseus.fi.
- https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/752941/dunguyen_thesis_final.pdf?sequence=2
- Montabone, Sebastian (July 27, 2010). "Beginning Digital Image Processing: Using Free Tools for Photographers". Apress – via Amazon.
- Soler Cubero, Oscar (September 2, 2011). "Image Stitching" – via upcommons.upc.edu.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:jiafm&volume=36&issue=1&article=015
- Gillmore, John; Dodd, Bucky (June 27, 2011). "Panoramic Virtual Environments for eLearning Applications". Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). pp. 951–956 – via www.learntechlib.org.
- Song, Huaibo; Yang, Chenghai; Zhang, Jian; Hoffmann, Wesley C.; He, Dongjian; Thomasson, J. Alex (March 31, 2016). "Comparison of mosaicking techniques for airborne images from consumer-grade cameras". Journal of Applied Remote Sensing. 10 (1): 016030. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.10.016030 – via www.spiedigitallibrary.org.
- https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39670392.pdf
- Weitoish, Daniel (January 1, 2012). "From the Canopy: An Arborist's Perspective" (58) – via repository.upenn.edu.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
- jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?
- Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Image_stitching#Software: until better sourcing is found. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, there are suitable sources for this, but they simply haven't been applied properly in the article. Any comparison made by an editor is basically not valid; the correct approach is to summarize the comparisons made by the reliable sources, and to explain the criteria used by those sources. Tables (with columns each cited to one of the sources) would likely be the best way to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
Given that any software platform is constantly being revised this would also become a high-maintenance article. Imagine, if in 2001, if we had an article titled "Comparison of dial-up internet services". What relevance would detailed comparison charts of CompuServe, Prodigy, and America Online have for today? Blue Riband► 23:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: My concern here is that this type of article is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. One, detailed listings of technical capabilities of different software packages are best suited for PC Magazine or similar publications. Two, it focuses on one aspect of photo editing - image stitching. Then we would have detailed articles on "Comparison of color-correction software", "Comparison of photo restoration software", "Comparison of image animation software", etc.
- Which would be effectively WP:TNTing, and thus argue the current content here should be deleted, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Somebody obviously did a lot of work compiling all this data but I'm seeing primary sources: product home pages, product descriptions, tutorials, and product descriptions. WiIkipedia is not a direcory nor is it a guidebook. So for those three reasons my vote is Delete.Blue Riband► 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)