Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

WP:DSLIST

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

U.S. automobile production figures

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

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a relic of an earlier era that would be more useful as tabular data on Commons. After 19 years, it's only linked to by 3 articles - two of them as improper circular references rather than useful wikilinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and nom. I am sure someone else has collected these figures before but it won't have the significant coverage to sustain such a list. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news media does cover which are the bestselling vehicles of the year. Google news search for bestselling vehicles in America and each year, finds some results in reliable sources giving significant coverage to this. We have articles for List of best-selling automobiles and List of automobile sales by model. List of countries by motor vehicle production exist as well. This list just shows how many vehicles were made in America by each company year by year. Does production per country get coverage, or just global sales? Dream Focus 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be WP:SYNTH issues? In which case I would argue just for a redirect to the automobile sales by model list as a potential target. Conyo14 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting schools in Pakistan

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

A mess of a list. No context, no sources. No other country in the world has a "List of accounting schools in ...". Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS and WP:IS provided for WP:V. Ref. included is a broken URL. QEnigma talk 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles and other violent events by death toll

AfDs for this article:

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

This page, deleted once already, was recreated as a disambiguation page, but the current page has only one entry which is not suitable for a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is already a List of battles by casualties and List of wars by death toll, and zero reason to group them with "other violent events" (whatever those are; alien invasions???). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misuse of disambiguation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of civil disobedience

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

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

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach

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

This appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of groups

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

Unreferenced arbitrary (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) collection of examples. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. Also seems redundant to FA Group (mathematics); even the lead says plainly: "examples of groups in mathematics are given on Group (mathematics). Further examples are listed here". If kept, this probably should be renamed to List of groups in mathematics, but it would need referencing and sources showing how it could meet WP:NLIST, and clear rationale why some examples are shown here and not in the main prose FA article. Do we need a technically infinite list of examples of groups? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As nom stated, this is redundant of the article Group (mathematics). Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator and follow up response. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially redundant to the main article. That being said, there's probably a reasonable navigational list to be had for our various articles on specific groups and types/classes of groups, but this isn't even remotely that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (though I am not opposed to a renaming). desmay (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Atlanta Silverbacks roster

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

Subject lacks notability under WP:LISTN due to a lack of sourcing. PROD was removed with the claim that sources exist, however none have been added to the article and I could not find any in a BEFORE, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Same situation as this AfD. Svartner (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of yellowface

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

This is a messy case of what should be named List of media featuring yellowface. Like many such lists, it is poorly referenced, and fails WP:NLIST. Even through the list has a 'notes' column, for many - most - entries there is no explanation/commentary why they are included here (nor reference). This is a messy WP:OR. What little can be salvaged here could perhaps be merged to Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater, which is where yellowface redirects too, but I doubt there is much we can use here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a simple Gbooks search shows plenty of sources addressing the topic as a set, therefore meeting WP:NLIST. WP:SPLITLIST also applies. Renaming as suggested would be a good idea; and adding missing sources, of course but this can happen through normal editing. -Mushy Yank. 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed it should be renamed, but whatever the name a list of films including yellowface seems like a sensible complement to the main article, and one that's easy to source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here; this is in abysmal shape and is beyond salvage. Most of the entries are unsourced, relying instead on editor WP:OR, and what sources there are, in the vast majority of cases, don't back up inclusion as an example of "yellowface", a necessarily nuanced and messy concept. This is a poor topic for a list per WP:LISTCRIT, which advises clear, unambiguous selection criteria. Prominent examples (thinking Mickey Rooney, right off the top of my head) can and should be discussed at the main article. But just because the overall topic is notable, that doesn't invite editors to try to compile a list of every single example (especially with such vague inclusion criteria to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 in sports

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

Declined PROD. Page was created too soon. List is completely unsourced and contains only one single entry. Almost eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A3. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a complete list and way too soon. I agree this could be speedy deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I added events from Category:2030 in sports, which brought it up to eight entries. At the very least it's definitely not eligible for speedy deletion anymore. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Lorstaking (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Procyon117 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely WP:TOOSOON. This page won't have use for at least another couple of years. Beachweak (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should stamp out the perceived need to create articles more than half a decade ahead of its time. Wikipedia does not hold a contest for fastest creation of articles. More articles on future or even current events need to develop in draft space first, that what is the case today. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and draft: Articles will be needed in the future, it can be moved to draft space where it can develop until a point it is suitable for the main space. Mn1548 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn1548: Drafts can only be stored for up to six months, according to WP:DRAFT, so sending this to draft space makes absolutely no sense. Considering that there isn't any content worth preserving, and the page can be easily recreated in the future. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. On second thoughts, my usual objections to deleteing articles that will be notable in the future regarding keeping the article as a source library doesn't apply in this case as such sources will be more available closer to the time for this article. A preference for draft is still here, but no objection to deletion. Mn1548 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minecraft characters

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

This is a fork of content on the main Minecraft article that doesn't warrant its own article. The bulk of this article is a Fandom-style listing of all of the mobs in Minecraft - the kind of thing that Wikipedia avoids being (unless it has good reason). It's a list of game mechanics that isn't (and can't be) written in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't discussed together in secondary, reliable sources. There are few notable topics here - namely Steve, Creeper, and Herobrine, which already have their own articles. But the rest just lists parts of the game.

Anyway, I argue this article does not warrant a Wikipedia article because it fails the notability of lists. Its content is adequately covered in the main Minecraft article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Entertainment, Popular culture, and Lists. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator says, these mobs are not really distinct "characters" and are more or less gameplay elements with little notability attached to their names. This list isn't really warranted, and is better off removed for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a "list of characters" so much as a list of enemies, i.e. gamecrufty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Steve and Alex are already mentioned in the main Minecraft article (with the former also having a full, dedicated article) and Herobrine, while a notable hoax, is technically not actually a character in Minecraft (and also has a separate, dedicated article as well). The remainder of this is not a list of characters, but a listing of enemy mobs in the game that borders on being a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons: GAMEGUIDE, all in-universe, and an indiscriminate list. Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without real world context, this does not feels closer to a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [1], [2], [3] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.

Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of acids by Hammett acidity

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

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Friends villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Super Friends article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters - Not only is this current list lacking in any reliable, secondary sources, many of the listed characters are minor antagonists that appeared in a single episode or comic book issue. The current article already lists the villains, with appropriate blue links to those that are notable. It should also be noted that the Legion of Doom also has its own article that covers a lot of the same information on many of the reoccurring villains in the series. So, between the information there and on the main Super Friends article, this is a needless spinout mostly being used to include excessive plot details on minor one-shot character appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters agree that there is no reason for this to be a separate article when the information is already included on the main Super Friends page. Rhino131 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters. There is definitely no need for this extensive list. It does not fit WP:NLIST, plus it already feels forked from the characters list. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Illinois tornado history

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois tornadoes. This is a list, not an article on tornado history in southern Illinois. I'm interested in expanding the tornado history of Northern Illinois, which I find much more interesting, but this is better done creating standalone articles including on individual tornadoes, outbreaks, and "Tornadoes of YYYY" expansions. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois tornadoes. Azuredivay (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Spiritism

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

the timeline is not notable, and it is not supported by significant reliable sources Drew Stanley (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to exist. Yes to a category and yes to a History of spiritualism article. I would not oppose a move. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, if you are okay with an article move, it sounds like you are open to Keeping this article under a different page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaus

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

Several of WP policies are in question here:

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" -- this list has many neologisms, and most entries, while intuitive in their derivation, do not or cannot have reliable sources. A good many of the links point to wiktionary, which is not a reliable source in itself.
The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear. There is extensive debate here, here and here. Without a clear definition and consensus, the debate of what to include is constant.
The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmanageably long with marginal added value: neologisms that are not used beyond the initial introduction, company/brand names, multiple spins on Reaganomics and Brexit, geographic locations (which has its own article with similar sourcing issues), for example.
The list is barely encyclopedic. It feels more suitable as a project for linguists (again, still debating the definition) or within a dictionary. A few examples in the parent article(s) are all that is needed to make the point for encyclopedic purposes. While many of the entries here are interesting for "so that's where the term comes from" reasons, collecting them on a single page here does not seem to meet WP's objectives, and collecting them all is not practical or possible. HalJor (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" - sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?

"The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear" - it has two definitions, the usual meaning ("portmanteau word", or blend, the subject of this list and the linked article) and "portmanteau morph".

"The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT" - if it's too long then remove any without sources.

"The list is barely encyclopedic" - Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.

I was thinking "Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this should be deleted or redirected to the Wiktionary category, after the references that support an entry in the list are moved to the relevant Wiktionary pages", but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Keep. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?" Quite a few are dubious. e.g. "flounder" links here which says "First recorded in 1570–80; perhaps blend of flounce and founder" (inconclusive) and here which adds "or perhaps symbolic, fl- frequently beginning words connected with swift or sudden movement". Also e.g. "sedge" references this which says "First recorded before 900; Middle English segge, Old English secg; akin to saw 1; presumably so named from its sawlike edges" which is similarly inconclusive but doesn't mention the blend. These are just the first two examples I checked in response here. HalJor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there..." That guideline also notes "the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited" which comes back to one of the earlier points in this nomination. It is far easier to cite a reliable source for the existence of a word (and its spelling) than the definitive etymology of the word (which doesn't always exist beyond being intuitive/OR). The Q-U list is also prone to be far less dynamic than the one under debate here, raising the maintainability concern. HalJor (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "sedge" was unlikely and removed it after checking the source, that's why I added "that support an entry in the list". Maintainability is no more of a concern here than in any other article that has content added without sources. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary already has wikt:Category:English blends (which is already linked from the Portmanteau article), a much more comprehensive list (with almost 7500 (!) entries), and actually suited to a dictionary. It's also worth noting that the current article should probably have been named "English portmanteaus" instead, since it only seems to cover those, but that's beside the point now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT is as valid here as for List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the example in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more valid here because this is a bare list without any encyclopedic content...any such background content can and already does exist at the main article on blend words, rendering this unnecessary. As already pointed out, the Wiktionary category already contains ~7500 entries (and that doesn't include all the company names and stuff), rendering this pretty unmanageable. It's also got generally ambiguous inclusion criteria, since what constitutes a blend word is somewhat subjective. The comparison between the two cases isn't particularly appropriate, which is why articles should be judged on their own merits. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The definition of "portmanteau" seems WP:OBVIOUS to me, but any confusion can be cleared up here by Merriem-Webster. Portmanteaus and blends are synonymous terms. Also, with 871,806 pageviews and 252 daily views, the article has to be providing some kind of value that merits inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something with an "obvious" definition, there are countless edge cases, along with plenty of words with uncertain/theoretical etymologies. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an interesting essay, but in no way does it define official policy or guidelines. As I was saying before, most of these "uncertain/theoretical etymologies" appear to be quite WP:OBVIOUS to the average English-speaking reader. Enix150 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking WP:OBVIOUS for some reason, but that's part of an essay about writing better articles, and it talks about including enough, but not too much detail to provide context to readers who might not otherwise know about it. This has absolutely no bearing on the article in question, which is whether or not this is a list that warrants an article (hint: it isn't). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed two bad entries. Any without their own dedicated article, or enough coverage in a different article, should be removed. Dream Focus 13:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave no actual rationale behind your "keep" vote, nor have you addressed the specific concerned raised in the nomination or further on in the discussion. Further, you haven't explained why things as disparate as animals, companies, random objects, etc etc, should be grouped in the same list merely because their name shares some superficial linguistic characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything listed has its own article, its a valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, because having an index of articles based on a superficial characteristic of the words used to represent any underlying concepts is not a valid navigational purpose. We'd no more have a full alphabetical listing of all the articles on Wikipedia (which would actually be more useful). This is not a valid keep rationale. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria for inclusion are clear. The list is not complete, but this is not a valid reason for deletion. Overall, having a list of such examples seems to be helpful for a reader who does not know much about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDICT. Specifically, since Wikipedia articles are organized based on concepts and not the words used to name those concepts, indexing articles by some quality of the words used to name them is out of scope. In addition, per WP:LISTCRITERIA, editors should not "synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." In other words, unless reliable sources discuss e.g. Hvaldimir, leopon, and crocoduck as members of a coherent category of things, Wikipedia should not imply that such a category exists. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course RS discuss portmanteau words as a concept. And since we have a big page about portmanteau words, having such a list as a supplement seems to be reasonable. We have many lists that illustrate concepts, there is nothing wrong with this. This page is not a dictionary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's the rub. Sources from fields such as linguistics discuss blend words as words. In linguistics and allied fields, words are a concept of interest. Compare this to e.g. List of mammal genera: plenty of reliable sources in biology discuss mammals as animals. I don't know of any sources, however, that discuss e.g. animals with blend-word names as animals, nor food with blend-word names as a style of cuisine, nor political movements with blended names as a political philosophy, etc. In fields such as biology, cooking, or politics, word formation is not usually a concept of interest. The grouping in this article is based on labels rather than concepts (NOTDICT) and created by Wikipedians (WP:SYNTH). Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a clearly notable list, the topic being discussed as a set in numerous sources (ranging from articles like https://www.nationalworld.com/news/offbeat/14-portmanteaus-words-and-their-meanings-such-as-brexit-netflix-podcast-pokemon-and-metaverse-4107705 to books like Stone, L. (2015). Language for Life: Where Linguistics Meets Teaching. Taylor & Francis;Goddard, C. (2018). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic MetaLanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. or Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending (see In particular the article "Portmanteaus as general templates" (2012). De Gruyter Mouton. and so on), easily available online for those who don't have a library. -Mushy Yank. 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid source demonstrating any kind of notability, and yours is not a valid keep rationale. You can't just wave some low-quality listicle clickbait churn content like this around and go omg omg NLIST NLIST haha keep. The overall topic of portmanteaus is notable, which is clear, and no one is remotely disputing, and that's all you get from your other sources, the overall topic, not a list. The question is whether Wikipedia should try to compile a list of every single goddamn one of them. And the answer is, no of course not. Because among other reasons (repeat after me, everyone), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and you haven't addressed this concern, or any of the others raised in the course of the discussion. Just because a topic is notable does not mean that Wikipedia editors need to compile a list of every goddamn single example of such topic (a list rife with edge cases to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NLIST, a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And portmanteaus have been covered as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources, including 1, 2, and 3. WP:NOTDICT is not violated here: the guideline notes that a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), but this isn't really about a set of meaning but rather is a list of items that happen to be words. And WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem to be an issue here; the set is pretty well-defined to be only those with Wikipedia articles—a perfectly permissible thing in light of WP:LSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RTH. NLIST seems met. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics

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

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two different rationales for deletion; that these are original research, and that there isn't coverage of this type of world record. The continental lists are also incomplete. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the World list, it's officially maintained by Athletics Weekly here: "World Under 23 Best Performances" That list is outdated, but GBR Athletics was acquired by Athletics Weekly a few years ago and their records went under the AW paywall, so I think that's where the most recent list would be. World Athletics also makes references to "world under-23 bests" in their writing e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] "Kirdyapkina, the wife of Sergey the reigning and two-time World 50km champion, was rewarded with a World U23 best", so I think they must maintain or reference some authoritative list otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to times that way. --Habst (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval on the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of world under-23 bests in athletics per explanation of Habst. – Editør (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pre-nominal letters (Sweden)

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

No sign of Notability. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page by copying entries from Lists of post-nominal letters#Sweden where they were cluttering a list of lists. Other lists of post-nominal letters are deemed notable, and this page is essentially no different from any of them. To quote essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". The page does require improvement though. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For one, I don't think these "titles" are ever used when referring to a person's name in Sweden. Furthermore it is not really encyclopedic information – it is rather a key to reading old biographical dictionaries where these abbreviations are used (for conciseness). The page therefore fails the policy WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOW. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a key to every way that one country lists honors. If this were a list of ranks in the military or parliament, it would make sense, but this doesn't. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Mostly a procedural keep, since I believe that all similar articles should be considered at the same time. Sjö (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe they should not be nominated together, because they are different phenomena. British post-nominal letters, for instance, are often used when referring to a person, whereas the Swedish letters in question are not commonly used (outside of encyclopedias and genealogies). Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

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

This article has been around since 2013, yet makes no claim of notability for any of the songs. The only reference is a book called "...130 Popular Songs...", which appears to be just a book of song lyrics, so it does not appear useful as a reliable source. There are a dozen more articles in this set. This article and its siblings appear to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or one of the other guidelines on that page. I suspect that List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi could be kept if some reliable sources were added, but the alphabetical directory pages should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 14 other articles of this form should be bundled with this nomination; I shall do so now. There are no sources that suggest this level of detail is encyclopedic in nature; perhaps @Jax 0677: can explain why these database-detailed articles are notable. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I split List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi because it was very long. I will not be upset if this page and others like it no longer exist, but I do suggest redirecting to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi with history in tact so long as that page exists. If that page no longer exists, then I suggest redirecting to Mohammed Rafi with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having recorded thousands of songs in multiple languages, this database cannot be entertained here. Lorstaking (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this is such a large bundled nomination, I want to make sure we have a solid consensus on what should be done with these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The songs do not require this level of detail, maybe they can be sorted into a single article. Xoocit (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we MUST trim the articles before we merge them. That was the whole point of the split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xoocit, is the Merge target article you are suggesting List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi? Please identify a target article whenever you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I don't see a consensus. I'll carry out the consensus but I question the value of having these 14 pages as Redirects to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi since they are unlikely search terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:R#HARMFUL, "The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are: a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history" / "Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and merge what's significant. Once you've recorded that many songs, we don't have to list them all, especially if they're not released on their own. Heck, even for major artists the discography usually only lists album names. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Lorstaking:, @Reywas92:, Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not opposed to that, but they are unlikely search terms and there aren't pages that link to them so a redirect is kind of pointless. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

U.S. Automobile Production Figures (via WP:PROD)