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

List of Norwegian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards

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

Similar case to List of Danish artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards and List of Welsh artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards. I don't see any WP:RS taking significant notice of the phenomenon of Norwegian artists being nominated for the MTV Europe Music Awards. The sources recently added verify that the artists were respectively nominated for various awards at the MTV Europe Music Awards but, importantly, none of the sources discuss all 4 artists as a group nor is there any extended commentary on their Norwegian nationality. In fact, only the Billboard source seems to make any reference to Norway. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and couldn't find any news sources writing about this phenomenon. It seems to be a list for the sake of having a list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Awards, Lists, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fails NLIST. Delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 in European women's basketball (A–K)

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

With this title, I would expect Information about the European competitions (for clubs or national teams), not a collection of results of national competitions which just happen to share a continent but are otherwise not related. Seems like a weird way to present these. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost entirely a difficult to navigate collection of game results and WP:NOTDATABASE so I think this should be deleted. Division of the list by alphabetized country name is also strange; why not by league/division or similar? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What do I need to do improve it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Abdulrahman Thaher filmography

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

The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jordan and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the director is notable, I don't think his filmography is long enough for a separate page as of yet. I think this should be merged to Abdulrahman Thaher as there are some pieces of media he's been in not mentioned on that page. jolielover♥talk 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per jolielover♥.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjab FC records and statistics

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The particular content can be found at Punjab FC#Records and statistics. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club is far too young to need this WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. I'm not against this type of page, but there's still little material to be worked on. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punjab FC#Records and statistics - does not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra

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

Without broader coverage of Michelin-starred restaurants in Andorra as a group, the topic does not warrant a stand-alone list, especially with only a single entry and no reasonable expectation of more in the near future. Mooonswimmer 04:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: They are reviewed together. I think it shouldn’t be deleted because there is no reason that the restaurant is any less deserving of a place in a list than any others. It is just because there are no others in the same nation, so the best list to put it in is Spain. History6042😊 (Contact me) 04:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per History6042. One item is not a list. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: per History6042. I don't think an article with just one article is considered a list. Merge until more. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain: per History6042.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Missouri

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

Same reason as "List of villages in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. I don't have much of an opinion beyond that at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. The "proposed merge" was not a formal merge discussion, either. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? There should be two lists: List of municipalities, and List of census-designated places. Those two are comprehensive and do not overlap. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The gallery and lead info should be retained, but List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigational information. The highlighting of county seats is also nice, but there doesn't have to be a separate duplicative page here. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong in keeping the list of cities of a state. NavjotSR (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that there is a list of cities in the municipalities list... Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, this is a valid and standard list for U.S. states, but the existing List of municipalities in Missouri seems best to house this.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state. Different styles by different cities, but this does seem to be acceptable within Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the pages in that category are actually lists of municipalities, and many of those with city lists should also be merged (though in several cases like Alaska and Idaho, city is the only type of municipality). Just because this article title is acceptable in other situations doesn't mean we need duplicative pages for this state when all content is in another page already. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete As the user who overhauled the Municipality List because of the Merge suggestion at the top, I did want to reproduce the same formatting at the cities one, county seats highlighted, more color coding, etc. but did not know how to do at the time. As for the introduction and background information, I think that should be moved over.
It does not make sense to me why there should be a list of cities, villages, and municipalities, especially when municipalities is both comprehensive and clear, while most readers may not understand the legal distinctions of what constitutes a village vs a city, nor do they really need to know that, and if they did it is in the table for the municipalities.
Additionally, I know that the Municipalities List is accurate and up-to-date data from the state of Missouri, and the other articles are not. If the cities and villages articles are to be kept, I think their data needs to be overhauled.

SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Missouri

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

Already merged with "List of Municipalities in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. Even at that, a {{Being merged}} tag was removed from this list last year by Nythar (talk · contribs) sayingno such consensus exists (in reference to the proposed merger). (For what it's worth, a similar tag was not removed from the list of cities in Missouri, which the nominator has also proposed to delete.) It would not surprise me if this nomination ends up not leading to anything, but at this time have little opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Villages are by no means so different that they should be listed separately from the list of all municipalities. This is purely redundant and serves no purpose, List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigation but with data that isn't just bulleted blue links. You should merge the lead info as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Lists of villages in the United States and Category:Lists of villages by country These seem to be accepted lists used by country and others. This seems to be global category listings. And as usual with Wikipedia, different styles for different places.— Maile (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only a few other states have village lists, and in cases like List of villages in Massachusetts, the villages are not incorporated so they must be listed separately from actual municipalities, or in Guam, they are all of the municipalities and this is the only list for it. Several others in the category are the primary municipality list where the villages are included, just like List of municipalities in Missouri! In Missouri, villages are incorporated municipalities that are already listed in the main list, and there is nothing special about them that justifies a duplicate listing. Villages in other countries are obviously going to be too different to compare, but the style for Missouri should be to list the incorporated places together, without pointless redundancy. The fact that village lists are accepted elsewhere has no bearing on this page. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Buddhism. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no benefit as a list. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National team appearances at Rugby League World Cups

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

Unsourced article which is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Mn1548 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly Merge): The "Team appearances by tournament" section, could be added to the main RLWC article (possibly combined into a single table (with sources added and a footnote to indicate format change)) and would be more informative than the "top four finishes" table currently in that article. The rest of the stats here show nothing that a reader could not work out for themselves from the "...by tournament" tables. There are no sources given, and although a search indicates that the information could be gathered from database sites, I have not found any sources with significant coverage discussing info like the performances by hosts or previous finalists or that this is any way notable. EdwardUK (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby League World Cup records. Unnecessary content fork - any tables supported by reliable sources can be re-added to the main records article. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amouna al-Mazyouna episodes

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

Completely unsourced episode list for a show that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines on its own. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, I have moved it back to the draftspace for now. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CF-501 Falcon: Please don't move articles to draftspace when it is already on AFD plus this is already draftified once thus a contensted draftification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity, Sorry. Will refrain from doing so in the future. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Potentially should share the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amouna al Mazyouna, bit the lack of referencing is an additional concern. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show doesn't even have WP:GNG, this certainly doesn't jolielover♥talk 19:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabzee discography

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

Does not meet GNG and the one reference provided in the article does not cover the subject in depth https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/malayalam/thallumaala-song-manavaalan-thug/amp_videoshow/93500395.cms Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 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 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should seem obvious, but just in case, if consensus is reached that this article shouldn't be kept, merge into Dabzee#Discography instead of deletion. it's lio! | talk | work 10:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-ington

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

Move to Wiktionary - dicdef with list. Compare wikt:-ton#Derived terms --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per nom.

ApexParagon (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary — Maile (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Redirect to List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles? —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea (you mean "merge/redirect", right?), but the list must be moved to wiktionary anyway. --Altenmann >talk 06:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not merge; I see little point in retaining the list of examples. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page has good referenced encyclopedic text to merge. --Altenmann >talk 00:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done: List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles § ington. --Altenmann >talk 06:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikitionary. As per WP:NOTDICT. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. >>> Extorc.talk 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport periodical

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

Unsourced article which admits it is a "tabulation for periodicals which do not have their own articles" - a blatant end-run round WP:GNG and a useless inclusion criteria. It is full of personal opinions and original research. While at least some of these periodicals do exist, there is no way for a reader to tell if they all do. Opolito (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of rail transport–related periodicals. Expanding the latter into (well-cited) tables with ISSN, publisher, and start/end dates would be valuable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to improve this article before creating the list? I think that list should be merged into this article instead. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"i don't hate the other trash so it could stay, get rid of this thing I like"
Wonder if this came from jealousy that Firefox article got chronological history instead of cluttered mess that is Chrome history Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox early version history isn't "trash". MinervaNeue (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" almost no links to secondary sources"

Release date is a fact.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about verifiaibility at all. If there are almost no links to secondary sources, the article is not notable. That doesn't mean it's not verifiable. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning please. Also, your wants make no sense. why keep the article about web browsers that are barely usable anymore and no one is likely to need to care about while the more recent versions need to be deleted? Icaneditalot42 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I use this article often and would miss it. It is a nice source for retro computing and having the information what changed when. 2003:F1:CF01:1F00:8C22:46F0:894D:D5D9 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness isn't an argument for keeping an article. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, then the template chart in the Template:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is getting squeezed and crunched up with each new year until there's no room for it. I would suggest trying to remove the template altogether. Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A sidenote to nominator to please stop bludgeoning the discussion unless there's a flaw in their argument with respect to the policies and guidelines. Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of various updates of firefox and many secondary sources are cited in the article. Yes this article deserves a cleanup, but I think merging information about updates to teh main firefox article doesn't make much sense as that article is already quite long and new information there would make for an obvious candidate for WP:SPLIT due to size. Keeping a separate article about firefox updates makes sense. Per WP:PRESERVE it would be preferable to improve the existing article. There are clearly more secondary sources available about updates.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Pretty explicit violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Nearly all of the article is just imported from the primary source https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/, and I fail to see why Wikipedia should list these routine changes this way. The Release compatibility section is also at Firefox#Platform availability. If someone wants to trim this 90% so that significant updates covered in independent sources are presented in a readable, encyclopedic manner, that may be appropriate, but this page, Firefox early version history, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.6, etc. are not really appropriate for the project, just to log every "Regular security and stability update." Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty we should get rid of the Firefox 1.5/2.0/3.0/3.5/3.6 articles, there not very useful. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's not merely a bunch of logs, there's enough encyclopedic content to maintain browser history. I guess its a question of WP:COMMONSENSE. Svartner (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries

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

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do appear to be sources for Irish place names in various countries, for example Irish Place Names in Australia [1] and "Australia's Irish Place Names" in The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies [; Dictionary of Southern African Place Names [2] which identifies those that are named after places in Ireland; The Master Book of Irish Placenames has an appendix of Irish place names in America [3]; Irish Place-names in America was published in 1963 [4]; "Gaelic Surnominal Place-Names in Ireland and Their Reflection in Argentina" in Studi irlandesi : a Journal of Irish Studies (2021); The Origin and Meaning of Place Names in Canada [5] notes places in Canada named for places in Ireland - etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list of interesting and Rebecca has decent sources that could be added, but it needs major clean-up if kept. It's pretty crappy right now: most of the place articles don't actually verify that they're named after the Irish places; Longford, Victoria, Shannon, Alabama and Moorefield, Ohio are just a few found in a quick scan that are not and should be removed.
Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, then add WP:TNT to my nom statement. This is too decrepit to be saved. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bangor is another that has no business being in this list: it's Welsh, not Irish. More generally, I'd go for delete, for the reasons others have given, but I don't feel strongly about it. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think Bangor is just Welsh, there is Bangor, County Down. But whether any Bangors in the list are named for the Irish place is unclear. A number of Bangors do mention the Welsh Bangor in their articles and those should be removed. A place like Bangor, California should be also be removed as its article says it is named for Bangor, Maine. Declangi (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep with the condition of citations and extra context being added (as per WP:NOTLIST). Also I would recommend turning each list into 3 columns so the page is easier to navigate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, RebeccaGreen has done very good work in finding sources. The list could be initially pruned by delisting entries such as those I mentioned above for Bangor. Having a placename in common with one in Ireland is not sufficient, a list entry should demonstrably be named directly for a place in Ireland. Declangi (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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