Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal

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

Mostly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials. The main article presents the material in a more encyclopedic format: it focusses more on what has received more secondary coverage and includes balancing and contextual information about the subject from reliable sources. This page just presents quotes sorted alphabetically by speaker, sourced almost exclusively to primary sources. Proposing therefore to redirect instead of duplicating the material in this form. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I have stated in previous discussions, having just a list of statements as this is, while it may has some utility, it is not a utility for readers here, and I believe the quotes are better provided within prose paragraphs, where we can also present the arguments of those who highlight these statements as evidence of genocidal intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedia. Seems POINTY rather than what we should be posting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ASPERSIONS before accusing other editors of disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials as proposer. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure you do not need to !vote in the discussion as a nom and just your nom is sufficient. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually to clarify I did see you did not specify your redirect in your original nom so I can understand why you did that here(though in the future you can in the nom propose a redirect.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. I'll leave as is for now, and try and remember for another time. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials. While the content itself may be notable, it isn't independently notable & thus doesn't justify a standalone article. Any quotes receiving adequate coverage to be included here would be better served in the main article instead. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

WP:REDUNDANTFORK says It becomes a problem when there are two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other, such as two outlines, two portals, two templates, two categories, etc. This is a list and the other is a corollary prose article, so they clearly qualify as not being two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other and therefore WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply. I made this point before but I think relitigating this argument here is warranted.
I'd like people who nominated for deletion to explain precisely why having a mainspace article and a list on the same topic is not permitted here but is permitted in other pages. Because every criticism made of the list seems broadly applicable to all lists across Wikipedia as a whole about topics that are notable enough to have their own corollary prose articles about the same topic. For example, why doesn't all criticism of this article on behalf of being an "unhelpful list better existing in more encyclopedic prose format" (the gist of the non-WP:ASPERSION counterarguments as I understand them) also apply to merging List of Puerto Rican flags into Flag of Puerto Rico, or deleting List of Puerto Rican flags (a Good Article) altogether? Even still, I can understand merging a lot more than deleting altogether, whereas pertaining to attempts at fully deleting the list as a whole without in any capacity preserving the information in the list—I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little suspicious this is an attempt to WP:CENSOR information that clearly meets Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY criteria.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions by saying that this is an attempt to WP:CENSOR information that clearly meets Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY criteria.
Appealing to NOTCENSORED to justify inclusion is a bad argument.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not appealing to WP:NOTCENSORED to justify inclusion. I'm appealing to WP:NOTCENSORED to show how some arguments against its inclusion are bad arguments, which is very different. Sir Joseph said Seems POINTY rather than what we should be posting. This point violates WP:CENSOR, which says discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The only broader claim I made with WP:CENSORSHIP was pertaining to attempts at fully deleting the list as a whole without in any capacity preserving the information in the list, which does not include everyone advocating for its deletion. Even if you don't like this list, the information should clearly be, at least in part, migrated elsewhere per WP:OVERLAP (which says if there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap that this is a reason to merge, rather than delete, the pages) and WP:ATD-M which reaffirms this conclusion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I agree the article should be merged if it is not kept. I agree that it should not be outright deleted. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - in that case nothing I said about WP:CENSORSHIP applies at all to you. And happy to clarify. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989: Thank you for the clarification. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are !voting on this article not those other ones and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep an article so I based my !vote on this article being a redudant fork not on those other articles. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like people who nominated for deletion to explain precisely why having a mainspace article and a list on the same topic is not permitted here but is permitted in other pages. This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GothicGolem29 SuperPianoMan9167

No, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That would be me saying "X article is just as popular so we should keep this article", which is clearly not what I'm saying.

I am pointing out that some of the logic brought forward, if accepted, could equally be applied as an argument to remove any list on Wikipedia, which is clearly a logical contradiction if we accept that lists are sometimes a good thing to have on Wikipedia and that you can't advocate against a list's existence on the basis of arguments that necessarily follow simply from it being a list.

For example, the opening notes by Samuelshraga say:

The main article presents the material in a more encyclopedic format: it focusses more on what has received more secondary coverage [... and this article is] sourced almost exclusively to primary sources - Okay, this is fair. Not enough secondary coverage, which is something we can edit this article to include more of, rather than deleting it altogether.
and includes balancing and contextual information about the subject from reliable sources. - Okay, balancing and contextualizing information. That's something that can also be fixed via edits rather than deletion since there's a row specifically dedicated to balancing and contextualizing information presented
This page just presents quotes sorted alphabetically by speaker - Well yes, because it's a list. So this seems like a ding against it for being a list since nearly all lists on Wiki are sorted alphabetically (since he said it "just" presents alphabetically).

There's some additional undertones I was catching that seemed to be going after it for being a list, but I don't think it would be useful to focus too much on the semantics of this as I might be a mistaken about exactly what some people mean. I just wanted to nip this line of criticism in the bud by legitimizing the concept of list corollaries to prose articles by providing an example of Good Articles that do exactly this (that would not have been accepted as good articles if this list duplicate criticism logic were true). So no, this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989 Clarification then: When stated that you wanted the editors !voting for delete to explain why and then pointed out that there are other lists that are permitted was that an argument from you to keep the article?. If you were just making a point on future ramifcations without trying to argue that other lists have been permitted then I can accept it was not other stuff but if it was an argument to keep it then yeah it is OTHERSTUFF as you are pointing out other articles exist and so this one should too. And I am somewhat skeptical that this would be applied to every list if this is redirected or deleted but that is a matter for after this afd I do not see that as a reason to keep this article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Alexandraaaacs1989 said, they already argued on talk that This is a list and the other is a corollary prose article, so they clearly qualify as not being two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other and so WP:REDUNDANTFORK doesn't apply. I answered them there that when WP:REDUNDANTFORK talks about two pages of the same type it lists: two outlines, two portals, two templates, two categories, etc - the examples are all types of pages in terms of the wikipedia project (e.g. you can have a category page and a mainspace page on the same topic). These two pages are both mainspace articles, which is one type.

Their argument about Puerto Rican flags is not one I feel competent to argue on the merits - for all I know there is a redundant content fork there. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reasonable argument for either inclusion or deletion really. As for the rest, the less said the better. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Butterscotch Beluga. Orientls (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexandraaaacs1989. They seem quite different things to me and have different topics. The intent and incitement one is a Wikipedia article on the general topic culled from various sources and discussed in them. List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal is a list article with the specific inclusion criterion of showing the actual statements being used in charges against Israel. I understand the desire to merge the two but the list is too long to include and describe each point - basically this AfD is talking about just removing the list altogether and it is a notable topic. NadVolum (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is definitely a notable topic, and many of these statements have been cited by South Africa in its ICJ case against Israel. Skitash (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per butterscotch User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials. At present, the content in both articles appears to be largely the same (statements from Israeli leaders characterized as genocidal) except that one is in list form and the another is in prose form. When it comes down to that, prose is preferred. More specifically, this article, a list of quotes from primary sources, does not appear to be as useful as the secondary source-backed prose in the main article. I also believe it has poor list selection criteria and fails WP:NLIST as it appears to just be a list of quotes mentioned in the UN Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ proceedings initiated by South Africa, which are by far the most cited sources on the page. The "Interpretations" footnotes likely contain some form of original research; for example, footnote E, South Africa's proceedings argue a distinction between humanity (Israelis) and the law of the jungle (Palestinians) is dehumanizing towards Palestinians, demonstrating genocidal intent., does not have any sources and appears to be editorial synthesis. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and a list of every quote from Israeli leaders characterized as genocidal is not necessarily informative or useful. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials: WP:REDUNDANTFORK says:It becomes a problem when there are two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other. The first part of this is met as it is the same content so therefore it does not warrant a seperate article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intent and incitement in the Gaza genocide#Statements by Israeli officials Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fugazi Live Series discography

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

I redirected this to Fugazi Live Series as this is a series of downloads made available by the band (the source given for all of these is the record company owned by the band, not an independent site). The band is very notable, the physical releases of the Live Series are presumably notable, but this discography (basically a list of nearly all their concerts: the complete page would apparently list 898 available downloads!) is not a notable subtopic. Fram (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think it is a notable subtopic, since it is interesting and other people may find it so. Many other pages have subtopics very similar to this, such as Dischord Records having a subtopic that's solely their discography. How is this any different? Jbiafra4prez (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fugazi Live Series. That article is adequate enough without all the indiscriminate stuff in this one. Ajf773 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Berenstain Bears characters

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

Cites only one source, contains original research, fails WP:GNG horribly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcitedA (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Wikiman2230 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless this can be sourced properly there is no hope for it. I can't even suggest to merge any of it as it is not sourced. If deleted there should be no prejudice to somebody making a new article provided the new authors can get the sourcing right. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NLIST (it only has one source!). Is there anyone else who thinks that we may need to write an essay on "List of characters from X" and notability? I'll write one if enough people think it's a good idea. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be a good idea. There are a lot of questions about when a character list of any type is really necessary and when it is, where it should be located, to what depth, and so on. I'll admit that I'm one of those people who are kind of uncertain about it, which is why I tend to avoid making character lists for anything other than a film. In those articles I usually limit it to just a cast list as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 📖 🎮 21:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berenstain Bears#Characters and themes – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Svartner. There's a good section already present at the parent and it preserves page history on the off chance this is notable in the future. Still, this is obviously non-notable and shouldn't be a separate article at this point in time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berenstain Bears#Characters and themes per above. मल्ल (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the original Berenstain Bears page. But deletion does not seem necessary AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not properly sourced so we would not want it merged unless valid sources can be found. DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anything less substantial, and we'd be turning into Fandom overnight. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Only source is primary, and everything except the opening paragraph of the "Main characters" section is uncourced. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza imports

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

This is a WP:CFORK of Blockade of the Gaza Strip. The material is already covered in the parent article, which is more comprehensive, better maintained, and regularly updated. This page has not seen meaningful updates in a long time and does not add any substantial independent coverage beyond what is already included elsewhere. Keeping it only leads to unnecessary duplication and fragmented coverage. If deletion fails, I would also be fine with a redirect to the parent article instead. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Economics, Lists, Israel, and Palestine. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blockade of the Gaza Strip – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I feel like there is something to this as a topic distinct from the blockade, but this is a poor title. Category:Foreign_trade_by_country has a few examples of Foreign trade in XYZ, so it could be kept and moved to Foreign trade of Gaza Strip or Foreign trade of Palestine, with a lot of reworking. So I think its worth keeping and restructuring along those lines.← Metallurgist (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of Chogokin

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

PRODded because the article contains only a list of toys and a basic description (WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PLOTONLY), with almost no sources. The PROD rationale was contested because it suggested other options may exist, but it did not elaborate:

I think this page is starting to get very bloated seeing that it is just doing nothing but just list down some new releases to buy. Would probably want this one deleted per wiki rules but I guess it depends if some people would go through it.
— User:Blackgaia02 03:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The page has existed in this state since creation in 2006, and it has been tagged for notability since 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Lists, and Japan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I said myself. I could agree for a deletion or merging without the Chogokin article itself and remove the catalogue itself. More importantly, it needs to have some reliable source too about its history. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its not really worth keeping a list of toys. Catfurball (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers with 400 or more goals in domestic leagues worldwide

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

Unencyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:CROSSCAT) with little evidence of meeting WP:NLIST. The boundary being set at 400 is completely arbitrary. lp0 on fire () 15:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. lp0 on fire () 15:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without having an opinion on the specific topic, having an arbitrary cutoff is perfectly acceptable and something regularly done across Wikipedia lists. I was just reading List of the longest-running Broadway shows, and it's entirely arbitrary to include only shows with 1,000 shows. That specific threshold doesn't require sourcing. It doesn't need to be in the title though, so if kept this could be renamed List of footballers with the most domestic league goals. I don't think it's a cross-categorization either, but it may be questionable whether to combine someone's scores in a Spanish domestic league and an English domestic league (or those teams' inter-league games?). Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Making vote Speedy delete. LOLOLOL I didn't realize List of footballers with 500 or more goals already had same information, so why the heck did someone make this duplicative article?? Not a search term either. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with Reywas about a rescope, but since we already have List of footballers with 500 or more goals, I think it's better to just collect everything there. The arbitrariness in "List of footballers with 400 or more goals in domestic leagues worldwide", then, lies in the domestic part - since it is less interesting where the goals were scored (league, cup, continental and international games). Geschichte (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOSTATS at present. There is no prose explanation of the list and only one single cite? Unless this was explained in multiple sources it clearly fails WP:NLIST. Govvy (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTSTATS. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have List of footballers with 500 or more goals. Giant Snowman 19:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I contemplated whether or not to nominate this myself while doing NPP the other day. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battle for Dream Island characters

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

Moved to article space despite AfC declines. Fails WP:NLIST. guninvalid (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Not ready for mainspace. Fails WP:GNG as lack there are lack of sources. Wikiman2230 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Clearly not ready for mainspace and has almost no sources. Resoundly fails WP:NLIST Gommeh 📖 🎮 21:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity per above. ConeKota (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I see no reason not to send it back to AFC at this time. Fails WP:NLIST. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not enough coverage for characters as a topic, and a search doesn't yield that either. Does not meet NLIST at present and I see no indication it will be notable any time soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it could warrant in the future. Solely because the list of characters don't have enough coverage now, doesn't mean it won't happen later. ConeKota (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited. While the series as a whole is notable, the characters are not. - Excited A. It may be a good idea to look at this. 13:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify If this (now former) draft keeps being put back in mainspace too soon, the mainspace title can be salted. If it keeps being wrongfully moved into other mainspace titles (e.g. List of BFDI characters or List of BattIe for Dream lsIand characters), it can be move protected. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete GNG-fail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draftified out of process. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily move protected to allow this AfD to continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Although this fails WP:NLIST big time, there is an article called List of Berenstain Bears characters that is only reliant on one source, and it is also a list of fictional characters. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that article is also wrong, you are free to start a articles for deletion discussion for that article too. guninvalid (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles are as equally non-notable does not mean something else is notable by default. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that article is notable at all. Nominating that for deletion as well. - Excited A. It may be a good idea to look at this. 13:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list was clearly not appropriate to move into the main space, and searches for sources are not showing any evidence that the subject actually meets the notability requirements where a separate character list would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST, prefer deletion over draftification as there is no plausible route towards notability. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-draftify as a bad faith move to mainspace, most likely ignoring the AfC rejection. AlphaBeta135 talk 04:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article was moved to mainspace after being declined; move it back to draftspace. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks appropriate coverage in independent sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage in WP:RS to demonstrate notability. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not foresee individual BFDI characters having enough coverage reliable sources for this article to exist. At best, one or two characters might someday have a subsection in the main BFDI article. See all the WP:NLIST discussions above. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Fails WP:SIGCOV and bad faith attempt at evading consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified shipwrecks in Australian waters

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

Fails WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. None of these unidentified vessels have independent articles, and just being a wrecked boat isn't inherently notable. What's next, a list of unidentified cars along the highway? Not to mention that unidentified is a very unstable qualifier as identification can be made.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toward the Terra characters

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

No references except the show website, and catalogue-like entries (ANN). Fails GNG/NLIST Per ATD-R I suggest redirecting (maybe merging a bit) to Toward_the_Terra#Plot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks appropriate coverage in independent sources. No cited content to merge. Please ping me if any good sources are identified; I may have missed non-English language sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Benny. Halbared (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in Western Sahara

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

Invalid list with only two entries. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Morocco. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. An editor from Mars (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep it has 3 entries, not 2, and the article was created to distinguish it from Morocco's list, since stadiums in Western Sahara were previously included there as if they were in Morocco, which they are not. The region is occupied by Morocco. Regioncalifornia (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third one does not exist yet and has no article. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be created, and that's not a valid reason either. Plus, there are other stadiums that have not been included. I see no reason to remove it. Regioncalifornia (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for these? If so, you should include it so that it passes the requirement for a list. Western Sahara, even the part that is occupied by Morocco, is not a very populated or rich place. So, using Occam's razor, we can conclude that there probably aren't that many football stadiums. User:Easternsahara 03:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of football stadiums in Morocco. While I support the independence of the Western Sahara, all of these museums are built on land occupied by Morocco, and are built by Moroccans. Normally, this wouldn't be enough grounds for deletion but, admittedly, there aren't enough entries in this list. I entirely oppose deletion because this is sourceable information which can reasonably be included in the Morocco page and it is a plausible search term, supporting the case for redirection. I would like to ask the nominator to reconsider deletion because of my arguments. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 06:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I’ve no objection to merge and redirect. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states by standard octane ratings

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

I'm nominating this list for deletion because it is trying to enumerate something that doesn't exist: states don't have "standard octane ratings". They do usually have "octane rating standards", which is an exercise in metrology. And they usually have labelling standards, such that gasoline of a certain rating must be labeled as such, or using certain words like "economy" or "E15".

But states do not specify that fuels can only be sold if they are of a certain octane rating.

The article, then, is completely original research. There are some citations, but those are to measurement and labelling guidelines, not to legislation that restricts the sale of fuels to certain octane ratings.

Since state-wide standard octane ratings do not exist, there's nothing to rebuild and nothing to merge or salvage here. mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This strikes me as a failure of WP:NOTDB, since the sourcing is all to state minimum standards and none of the sources discuss the topic in the aggregate. I don't agree that it's OR, though it is insufficiently sourced. Rather, it's an unencyclopedic topic on a technical matter that WP isn't suited for. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; the industry effectively sets their own octane norms, not states, and the entire article is sourced by what editors have seen at the pump, not actual hard sourced numbers, a problem that's also been a long-term pain point with Speed limits in the United States by jurisdiction, where Google Earth and editor contribs without sources were a norm for way too long. The map is also wholly unsourced and non-sensical. Nathannah • 📮 23:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rossa discography

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

No evidence of NLIST, content fork of Rossa (singer). Fermiboson (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Indonesia. Fermiboson (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is WP:OKFORK, the relevant guideline here is MOS:DISCOGRAPHY which states, Musicians who have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles. The article on Rossa says She is one of Indonesia's Best-Selling Indonesian Artist of All Time based on album sales, with over twelve million copies sold in the region until 2023. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The main article is already tagged with a few maintenance tags with the motive of making the article more in line with Wiki standards. Zalaraz (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid CFORK. The main page does not have enough space for covering this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rossa is eligible for a discography article per the standards at the Discographies Project, and this one simply needs to be cleaned up with better formatting and additional sources. Such sources should be available in her native tongue if we can get some assistance from editors who are familiar with Indonesian music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rossa concerts

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

No evidence of NLIST, content fork of Rossa (singer). Fermiboson (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Indonesia. Fermiboson (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is original research. Aneirinn (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Aneirinn. Svartner (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the above, but also per WP:TNT; paragraph 2, starting with "Her Malam Keajaiban ..." is a disaster. If not AI, why AI shaped? Bearian (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC) The third paragraph "Rossa continued to break records..." is a monstrosity. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe in popular culture

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

I've really gone through this list as best as I can, but it's hard to find almost anything worth salvaging. The section in Marilyn Monroe's biography provides more relevant information than this entire article. This article is full of completely irrelevant and completely unnotable mentions of her in popular culture. Large swaths are completely uncited or reference primary sources without showing any notability. Only a small handful of the content present here is useful, and really the relevant information is already at Marilyn Monroe's main article. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, seriously? Needs some work but not deletion. Monroe's image and legacy is at the peak of United States popular culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this article really doesn't focus on Monroe's image or legacy. It doesn't even discuss it the tiniest bit! It's really just a bunch of trivial mentions in popular culture. Virtually everything would have to be deleted and then still completely reworked. I'm not arguing this page shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that this page really can't exist in the state it is in at the moment at all, to the point that the page isn't even slightly useful to a reader. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her life and image are covered in her main article, this is coverage of her impact on popular culture, which is considerable. I disagree on deleting entries, they should be similarly presented though and the talk page covers the "too big to chew" attempt at tabling of two months ago which should be reversed to before the attempt but the sections moved to order of importance as suggested there. But this deletion attempt is not the way to go, with the first step being bringing the page back to before the tabling and then change the section order. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brought the page back to before the failed tabling. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion is that if we don't delete almost all of the entries, the article will never be taken out of the maintenance backlog. Patrolling the backlog is how I found it. I often work on correcting trivia sections in articles, and if I applied my typical methods, nearly everything would be deleted, and what would be left is better summarized at her main article. This article, ideally, shouldn't even be a list at all. It should be about extensive coverage of her life as a pop culture figure. I genuinely believe that draftifying or blowing it up would be eventually be more likely to create a viable article on this topic. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. She is notable and this article deserves to stay Wikiman2230 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Monroe is notable; I doubt anyone would ever say otherwise. But her notability doesn't have any bearing on this specific article. Even then, the topic of "Monroe in popular culture" can very well be notable, and we still may want to delete this article. If you think it should be kept, you should address the specific concerns raised. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as ATD SDGB1217 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT, WP:NOTTVTROPES, etc. If anyone thinks they can salvage anything out of this or use it as a starting point for a better article, I wouldn't object to userfying/draftifying, but there doesn't seem to be much here but a giant laundry list of random references, most of which are either unsourced or primary-sourced. I highly suspect that the topic really is notable as others have also said (whether or not it needs a separate page or can live at her main bio article is a separate issue I guess), but this is so far away from it that there's no reason to keep it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. AfD is not for cleanup. Books have been written about her impact, paintings have been created, etc. However, songs that merely "reference" Monroe should be vaporized forthwith. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. Take note that List of performances and awards of Marilyn Monroe became a Featured List in 2003. There's a lot of her work on that Featured List. That list also includes Filmography, Television, and awards etc. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Add the {{cleanup AfD}} template to the article. The article itself has issues, but it has received significant traffic spikes in the past that correlate with the Marilyn Monroe article, while it is also worth noting that Marilyn's article links to this one. Oakchris1955 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject. The page is big enough because Marilyn Monroe is a well known influential icon and this page is too big to be merged on the main Marilyn Monroe. Koshuri ^(あ!) 16:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should not be a list article. It would probably work as a prose article and/or a series of list articles each with more narrow scopes, but the current approach is not the way to go. That cleanup is needed seems uncontroversial based on the above comments; I would not be opposed to draftification in the meantime as suggested above. TompaDompa (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Left guide (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superstore characters

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

Almost all of the citations in this article are primary. Only four non-primary sources are used out of 92. Any useful information can be moved to the series article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find a single source cited here that provides sigcov, let alone WP:THREE of them. There are some sources I did find, but I think those would be better used on the main series page. Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks appropriate coverage in independent sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radio Philippines Network specials aired

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

Similar to the AfD on List of ABS-CBN specials aired, this list falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It serves no purpose other than to promote the station by showing the type of content it has previously aired. There is nothing that talks about the list as a whole so also fails WP:NLIST. None of these seem to be original programming either so it is basically a failure of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ACROM12 [TALK] 23:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTAGUIDE Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of GMA Network specials aired

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

Similar to the AfD on List of ABS-CBN specials aired, this list falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It serves no purpose other than to promote the station by showing the type of content it has previously aired. There is nothing that talks about the list as a whole so also fails WP:NLIST. None of these seem to be original programming either so it is basically a failure of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't need to add this and failed on NLIST. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; many of these programs aren't specials and are regular yearlly, holiday and sports programming, along with an incongruent mess of paid religious specials and random minutia like concert specials and countless Eat Bulaga primetime extensions already described in that tangled web of articles for that show. Nathannah • 📮 01:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Agnibaan#Launch history, which appears to have already been completed during this AfD. Left guide (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Agnibaan launches

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

List of 1 as of now and for the near future at least. I redirected this to Agnibaan#Launch_history where this can easily be covered, but was reverted. Fram (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Spaceflight, Lists, and India. Fram (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is created along the lines of the List of LVM3 launches article to reduce the burden on the main article (for example, LVM3). That's why I created this article to reduce the burden on the main article Agnibaan. Therefore, in my opinion, deleting this article would be inappropriate. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 10:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: This list will become even more extensive as soon as AgniKul Cosmos begins its orbital launches. Therefore I urge the reviewing administrator to save this article from deletion. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 12:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are not enough launches to justify a list article. Right now, there's so few that even the main article doesn't need a list; the launches can be mentioned in the article text. Should the number of launches ever become so large that it justifies an article, this article can be recreated. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Agnibaan#Launch_history: I completely agree with the nominator on this one. Right now, we are looking at a "list" that effectively contains just a single completed entry, which hardly warrants maintaining a standalone page. It makes much more sense to redirect this to the main article, where the launch history can sit comfortably without cluttering things up. We can always spin this back out into a separate list later on, once the rocket actually racks up a few more launches and the table grows enough to stand on its own feet. Jībanmṛta^message 18:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jībanmṛta, WP:TOOSOON situation. I saw this at AfC the other day and didn't think it would pass. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jībanmṛta. Though, I've already merged the article with Agnibaan (Launch history). – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 04:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram and Jībanmṛta: I've created a redirect page at List of Agnibaan launches. Would you please revoke the deletion process? I don't want that page to be deleted. It's a humble request. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^🗿 04:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Agnibaan#Launch history – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of minor Greek mythological figures

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

As noted on the talk page, I'm not sure how we would come up with a coherent, source-based definition of what constitutes a "minor" Greek mythological figure. As such, I think this article fails WP:LISTCRITERIA, which asks that inclusion criteria are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, and asks us to [a]void original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paganism and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to List of Greek mythological figures. It is uncontested that this is a list of figures that are in fact "Greek mythological figures" (each of them is sourced in their linked article), and it is beyond cavil that a "List of Greek mythological figures" would pass WP:NLIST, so the only concern here is the designation of these figures as "minor". Given that we have a List of Greek deities restricted to fairly major figures, and a List of mortals in Greek mythology, and a List of Greek mythological creatures, there must be a place for listing figures in Greek mythology that are neither deities nor mortals not creatures, which this list apparently does. BD2412 T 02:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding there must be a place for listing figures in Greek mythology that are neither deities nor mortals not creatures, which this list apparently does, I don't know which figures you're referring to: what would a figure be if not a deity, mortal, or creature? I can't think of any figures which fit into this category. Nor are those the figures listed by this article: currently, it consists mostly of mortals, with a smattering of deities and creatures throughout.

List of Greek mythological figures is a redirect to Lists of Greek mythological figures, which is a list of lists, so I don't know how we would merge anything there. Also, List of Greek deities isn't just for major figures; it includes all Greek deities. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel: I don't think that dichotomy is correct. Just at the top of the list, look at Abderus, who is neither clearly a deity, nor clearly a mortal (since he is possibly a son of a deity). Obviously he is not a creature either, but he is a figure from Greek mythology, and a minor figure by any rational system of denoting significance. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abderus is clearly a mortal, as his only notable appearance in mythology is the story of his death (see Abderus § Mythology). He is also the first figure listed at List of mortals in Greek mythology. Nor does having a divine parent preclude a figure from mortality, which is what you seem to be suggesting; see Minos, Phaethon, Sarpedon, and plenty of others.

As to a minor figure by any rational system of denoting significance, sure, you might be right that anyone reasonable would agree that Abderus is "minor". But the issue here is that the line between what constitutes a "minor" figure and what does not is entirely undefined. For example, is Achlys a "minor" figure? If so, what about Lyssa, Hygieia, Horkos, Hypnos, Eris, Peitho, or Nike? I think most will agree that Nike is hardly "minor", but at what point between Achlys and Nike are the figures no longer "minor"? Can you (or perhaps Reywas92 or ZDRX) tell me where you would draw that line among these eight figures, and how you would justify the drawing of that line with reliable sources? The second part of that question is particularly important, as WP:LISTCRITERIA states that: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we are in agreement that there are "major" and "minor" figures in Greek mythology, and hashing out where the line is drawn between them. BD2412 T 00:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment was perfectly clear. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. If this page were deleted, these figures wouldn't be listed in any of the relevant articles at all. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lists of Greek mythological figures and expand. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to a list that lists this article along with 7 others. What are you suggesting be merged? All 8 list together would be far too long. Dream Focus 07:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Minor" means not much information about them exist, the article clearly defines that. Dream Focus 08:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of mortals in Greek mythology. Deiadameian (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe a number of figures on this list are not mortals. BD2412 T 22:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Which one? Deiadameian (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  For example Adrasteia (mythology), both meanings being immortals (a nymph and a goddess). All the nymphs and oceanids are immortals, as far as I recall. BD2412 T 13:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if this should be kept or merged. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two reasons I've seen in this discussion for keeping the article are BD2412's claim that it lists figures who are neither deities nor mortals not creatures, which hopefully we can all agree is untrue, and Dream Focus's statement that "Minor" means not much information about them exist, which, while of course correct, doesn't address how we would source which figures meet this criterion.

I'll provide a simpler version of my question above: how would we, using reliable sources, determine which of Achlys, Hygieia, and Peitho are "minor" and which aren't? We need to be able to do this, as WP:LISTCRITERIA states that: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. I'm not awfully convinced there's much here worth salvaging, but I wouldn't have an issue with merging the current list to List of mortals in Greek mythology, as almost all of the figures here are mortals. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've notified what are, I think, the two most relevant WikiProjects here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-polluted cities by particulate matter concentration

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

Wikipedia is not a database. This list is just sourced from an organization's DB and provides no meaningful commentary or explanation. Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes two citations that provide significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Thus, the list meets WP:NLIST. Commentary or explanations are not required for list articles. Rublamb (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete The actual article title ought to have appended "in the period from 2010 to 2022 as recorded in a WHO database which is known to be quite incomplete." Surely even half a century earlier the results would be completely different, for one thing, and the lack of data from much of the world is a problem. This seems contrived. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a closer look at the WHO page and it states

What it cannot do:

❌️ draw direct comparison between countries

❌️ rank the most polluted cities

Natg 19 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree the WHO database is flawed as the sole source. However, because there is already a source for this article that interprets the primary data (WHO database) to create a ranked list of cities, this really falls under "meet notability and can be improved". There are also other potential sources with ranked lists or more globally inclusive data: IQAir, USA Today, Earth.org, World Air Quality Index Project, American Lung Association, World Economic Forum, Forbes, World Atlas, CSR Universal Sustainability Library, Climate Action, NBC News, CBS News. And I have not even looked for scholarly or journal articles yet. Rublamb (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but we have to fix the problems and maybe shorten the list as proposed in the talk page. thomasmazzotta 15:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly do you plan to do so? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. Sources identified by Rubland demonstrate that the topic is notable. The article should contain a section that explains the limitations of the metric, but this can be fixed via editing. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. This sits squarely in the crosshairs of WP:NOT. There is no way to make this a reasonable WP article. No amount of editing can fix the underlying issues. To justify its existence, this list has to take such a specific measure, from one single database, for only one small range of years, for data which changes considerably year-by-year. This is no way to create a list article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My impression on reading the title alone was "that's cool and I want to keep it." I read the article's main text and examined its sources. It's narrow, but it's notable enough to merit keeping this useful page. Zero objection to adding "in the period from 2010 to 2022" if that makes anyone feel better about it. Perhaps some kind of "last updated MONTH YEAR" tag would be appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is already adequate for a keep. A bit more context about particulate pollution at the top of the list would be helpful. Wikipedia is not a database sure, but there are a number of alternatives to full deletion for this article.I would guess that additional sources could be found in academic literature too to help flesh out the intro. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NLIST. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 11:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. I agree with Darkfrog24 as well that it is a cool article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship decommissionings in 1870

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

After six years, the only ship in this list was decommissioned in 1865, 1870, 1874 and 1877. This is clearly not a defining characteristic (unlike scrapping) and there seems to be no interest in turning this into an actual list instead of a single-entry page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Added on 10 December) Fails WP:LISTN, not notable as a group, hasn't received attention as a group subject from reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List them by decade, and if any have too many to fit in the list, then link to the separate list article. Don't delete only some of them one by one and waste everyone's time. If its "clearly not a defining characteristic" then discuss it with the proper wikiproject, and then if confirmed nominate them all at once. Category:Lists of ship decommissionings Dream Focus 17:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ignore AfDs that are a waste if your time. Projects have no special authority about whether this is a defining characteristic or not. This fails Wp:LISTN. Fram (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfDs. This is not a defining characteristic, and there does not seem to be any sources that talk about by-year decommisionings as a group. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after a quick search, I already added three more ships from the same source, rebutting the claims in the nomination. I can add more entries onto the article once I get my hands on the correct books. GGOTCC 19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still no indication that this meets WP:LISTN and has received attention as a group. Fram (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram In the future, a quick WP:BEFORE would allow you to nominate an article for fundamental issues instead of a problem that can be fixed in 5 minutes. If a list is short, as per the nomination, then you can be the one that expands it with the link already in the article. GGOTCC 22:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have a longer list that still fails WP:LISTN, without independent sources that discuss the topic as a group. I have no reason to waste my time expanding a list which fundamentally is not suited for enwiki, and not adding every possible entry (which would need checks on all navies, not just the US) is not a wp:before fail. Fram (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then have that as the justification, not that a dynamic article is too short for your liking. GGOTCC 17:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I have now added it to the nom statement (indicating that I added it later). Fram (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! GGOTCC 20:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of ship commissionings could have a column listing when they were decommissioned as well. If listing when a ship was commissioned is notable, then mentioning when it was decommissioned should worth mentioning in the same place. Maybe someone can make a bot to grab the information from each article by year, and combine it automatically. Dream Focus 18:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is part of a much larger list that dates back to 1864. Overall, there are 131 of these lists. Please see Category:Lists of ship decommissionings. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and consider renom as a bundle. Kinda on the fence, not seeing anything passing nlist, but it might be out there.← Metallurgist (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of board games

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

Big sigh. The list has no inclusion criteria and it even admits, verbatim, that This list is hopelessly incomplete, as there are tens of thousands of board games in the market.". With only two footnotes for the lead (about the concept of board games in general), it is effectively unreferenced. In addition, instead of listing games alphabetically, it imposes a convoluted one-dimensional categorization scheme, which means that board games are semi-randonly assigned to only one subcategory, such as "Two-player board games" or "Economics strategy games" (of course, most games belong to multiple such categories, and the list includes only a few arbitrary ones). The topic is too broad to make sense as a list. At best it can be coverted to a disambig or a list of lists such as List of abstract strategy games or List of Japanese board games, also I am unsure whether even these makes sense. But we have a List of video games in the "list of lists" format, so maybe this one can be coverted to this version as well. But in the current layout it's WP:TNT material (it would probably be easier to ask an AI to look at related categories and just make a list of relevant lists from scratch than try to clean up this mess...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no harm with this articled. I don't see why list articles should have that many footnotes, the articles about individual board games of course should have. It is easy enough to classify board games under the specific type. Anf of course, only board games that have Wikipedia articles should be included in this list. JIP | Talk 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not clear on list vs. category. I know there were huge discussions in the past on that topic. I think "board game with its own article on Wikipedia" is probably fine as an inclusion guideline, but that's basically a category, yes? Hobit (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a keep. Yes, it's perfectly valid as a category, but many of our readers have no clue whatsoever that categories exist, or how to use them. Navigational lists can exist in parallel with categories as an alternative way to "index" Wikipedia's articles. A list of board games is the sort of reasonable thing people will want to navigate, so although it's a horrible and unwieldy list, it's a valid one. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article can be improved, but that doesn't give up the validity of the article ScrubbedSoap (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep, passes NLIST without adoubt. But certainly could use trimming. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes WP:NLIST. This might even be one of the best and most notable list pages I have seen, I am surprised it is getting AfD'd. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Women's Cricket World Cup statistics

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

Statistics-only pages in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Past similar AfDs: [1][2][3] Vestrian24Bio 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part Merge To 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup #Statistics as an WP:ATD, but only merge stats on most runs, most wickets, highest team totals, highest individual score, and most catches, and team of the tournament. And do the exact same for the 2009 version. Plus doing these exact stats goes in line with other articles: 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup#Statistics, 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup#Statistics, although this one only has most runs and wickets: 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup#Statistics. And this one only has team of the tournament: 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup#Awards. But I do want to note that the rationale highlighting past similar AFDS could be considered WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted the previous AfDs as a precedence to this only.

Also, only most runs, most wickets and team of the tournament are generally included. Vestrian24Bio 11:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Women's T20 World Cup statistics

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

Statistics-only pages in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Past similar AfDs: [4][5][6] Vestrian24Bio 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To 2024 Women's T20 World Cup #Statistics as an WP:ATD, and do the same for other respective articles to preserve history at redirects target, but do not merge all stats! Make sure that only the core stats are listed at target. But I do want to note that the rationale highlighting past similar AFDS could be considered WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted the previous AfDs as a precedence to this only. Vestrian24Bio 11:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup statistics

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

Statistics-only pages in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Past similar AfDs: [7][8][9] Vestrian24Bio 09:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 09:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To 2023 Cricket World Cup #Statistics as an WP:ATD, and do the same for other respective articles to preserve history at redirects target, but do not merge all stats! Make sure that only the core stats are listed at target. But I do want to note that the rationale highlighting past similar AFDS could be considered WP:OTHERSTUFF. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted the previous AfDs as a precedence to this only. Vestrian24Bio 11:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio Thanks for clarifying it was just highlighting similar AFDS. But I would like to point out that someone arguing to delete based on one of those discussions still could be considered a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Variations discography

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

Wikipedia is not catalog, and 98% unreferenced, too --Altenmann >talk 04:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Goldberg Variations are one of Bach's key works, performed not only by prominent classical keyboard players, but also by performers on alternative instruments, as well as jazz interpretations.

I would like to see the discography limited to recordings & performers referenced in the GV main entry, providing illustrations of / references to the many varied performances of the work. Mariushendrik (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Bach's and Beethoven's and Chaikovsky;s and ... — prominent works are performed and recoorded zillion times. Wikipedia is not catalog and in our lists we usually list only items that have (or may have) individual attention. --Altenmann >talk 08:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST [10][11][12]. It is said that there are roughly 600 recordings as of 2023. To make the number more manageable, we can limit it only to those artists that have their own page. The lack of sources is a surmountable problem. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and would be happy to assist tidying the lst up Mariushendrik (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per [WP:INDISCRIMINATE](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE&redirect=no) searched for similar catalogs for numerous prominent works, they don't exist. Don't see why Goldberg should be an exception.PinkSlippers (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and the nominator probably missed Category:Discographies of classical compositions....those lists obviously do exist..... ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list can meet WP:NLIST if its topic was addressed as a group/set in reliable sources. See https://theclassicreview.com/best-of/bach-goldberg-variations-the-best-recordings-part-3-piano-versions/ (part 3 of a series....) https://www.classical-music.com/articles/the-best-recordings-of-js-bachs-goldberg-variations https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/bach-s-goldberg-variations-a-quick-guide-to-essential-recordings https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-best-recordings-of-the-goldberg-variations/ and so many pages in literature about Bach or that work that listing them would take hours.... but they include for example https://www.gmth.de/zeitschrift/artikel/1119.aspx https://www.proquest.com/openview/5343548bf09ae54a47747db72440eac3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 or https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/may-2022/before-and-after-gould/ The list has obvious merit in terms of musical history...--~2025-38537-34 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought in Indiana

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

An essentially unreferenced article that goes against the WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN guideline. Nominations of other articles like this, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles fought in South Dakota, have resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, United States of America, and Indiana. toweli (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Wikiproject style guideline is not a Wikipedia notability guideline. Moreover, that section of MILMOS refers to categorization, not what is permitted in articles, and I don't think the debates it is concerned with are particularly salient for US states. Anyway, there's still Category:Battles in the United States by state. This seems to be a perfectly valid and informational navigational list. Reywas92^Talk 02:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the South Dakota verdict. What applies to categories applies to lists of this sort. Also, there was no Indiana at the time of half the battles listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator does not provide a policy-based rationale for deletion. Categories =/= lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational and information list. Enough things on the list have their own articles linked to, its a valid list. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a valid list, also concerned with the lack of good reason for deletion. Lynch 44 11:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is valuable historical information on Indiana. — Maile (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mongolia

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

WP:TNT, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Wars fought by ancient Xianbei tribes bear no relation to "wars involving Mongolia"; neither do battles fought by the Kalmyk Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, or the Khoshut Khanate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so it's by geographically Mongolian like the nations based on modern day Mongolian lands and not by ethnicity which includes nations like Kalmyk Khanate or the Khoshut Khanate, or the Succesor state of Mongol Empire which is Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate? HorseBro the hemionus (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly salvage by restricting to separate lists for the Mongol Empire and its successor states only? Also delete individual battles, raids, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just discuss what should be included. Category:Military history of Mongolia has a subcategory Category:Military history of the Mongol Empire which includes Category:Battles involving the Mongol Empire and Category:Sieges involving the Mongol Empire, these could easily fill a list titled List of wars involving the Mongol Empire. There is a category for Category:Wars involving Mongolia for the different countries called that at times, which could perhaps be a different list. Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep unnecessary nomination, just remove things that are irrelevant

Wikicommonsfan134 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid nominaton. Per our deletion policy, issues that can be solved by editing are not grounds for deletion.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroic Age characters

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

The usual 99% unreferenced plot summary, 1% with refs are to the anime episides or production websites. And 1/3 of the article is off topic even (not about characters, but about the in-universe lore - the Labors section). Sigh. This can be redirected, maybe slightly merged, to Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sourcing beyond fan sites/churnalism sites from what I can find with a quick search. Opposed to a redirect as "Heroic age" as a term is general and, without any prior knowledge of the anime's existence, I expected this to be about heroes from the Greek Heroic Age. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 00:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz @ZDRX There is some useful content here, such as matching of voice actors to characters; and having seen the show, I can confirm the plot summary is accuarate. I recommend redirecting; as the content, after major (90%+) pruning down is usable for a character section that should be added to plot (I can create one). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heroic Age (TV series) as the usual WP:ATD for these types of articles. Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus between deletion and redirect at present; extremely limited material identified to be merged, further comment on the title's conflation with the Greek Heroic Age would be useful as reason to delete rather than redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heroic Age (TV series) per above.

Delete. Agree with above, 'heroic age' usually means summat else, no redirect.Halbared (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as WP:ATD. This AFD has a consensus of WP:DELETEORMERGE, meaning a consensus that this shouldn't be an article. There is some disagreement about how much to include at another article, but that can be worked out through normal editing. A redirect makes it possible for editors to figure out the next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

List of university statistical consulting centers (via WP:PROD on 19 September 2025)