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:

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 United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

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

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire departments in the Philippines

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

Unclear notability WP:NLIST Scoria (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Scoria (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. All blue links aren't actually fire departments, they're broader articles that have some small mention of a fire department. Ajf773 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags Great Adventure Rolling Thunder Incidents

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST. Listing of non-notable incidents. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Lists, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely duplicated from Incidents at Six Flags parks § Rolling Thunder but does not pass as a standalone list. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already appears in article Incidents at Six Flags parks. Don't need a separate article for a single attraction at a single park. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since it's just duplicated content. MarioGom (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of brightest stars by distance

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

No evidence that this specific type of ranking has received any attention, fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newly created list, actively under development, weak deletion rationale (did you search for any?), and nominator already attempted to PROD in violation of PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, you may just abolish Prod. My reasoning might have convinced the creator, in which case this was an uncontroversial Prod. You never know upfront. "Newly created list, actively under development" is not a keep reason, if there are no sources about the subject. And yes, I did search. Do you have any non-weak reasons to keep, actually? Fram (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely welcome to try and change PROD, rather than using it in a manner that is outside its current scope. If someone's added content to an article in the last 24 hours, that's pretty much SKYISBLUE evidence that that user would object to the article being deleted.

And yes, being in progress is absolutely a reason to not bring something to AfD until it's fully taken shape. "Brightest stars by distance" is not an obviously non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, so we're not clearly saving someone pointless effort. Since you didn't find anything, I'd be interested in what you did for a BEFORE search; I would find it odd if this concept is mentioned nowhere--I think it much more likely to have been mentioned with differing phraseology. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to try different phraseology and then berate me for not using the one you eventually have some success with, if that happens. There is no need to change Prod or how I approach it. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no need to change PROD. You have now been reminded, politely, that what you just did with it violated community expectations. If you believe it should be OK to PROD articles people are working on, then you should seek to modify how PROD reads, because if you continued to use it like that it could be construed as TE. Better to just go straight to AfD if you're 1) sure that something should not have an article, and 2) other people are actively editing/expanding it. In this particular case, a BLAR to List of brightest stars, which is already sortable by distance, would also have been an option, since there's no prohibition against trying it when other people might object. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think making two list in the article based on first one based on brightness and second one based on distance and brightness in the List of brightest stars by merging both article or developing it as a standalone article like it is now and expending it. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Live and let live. Maybe someone besides me (the one who started the article) will wonder what the brightest star is beyone Sirius, and then what the brightest star is beyond that. I wanted to know, I didn't find a list on Wikipedia, so I made one. Laura240406 seems to appreciate it, because she did a lot of work on it. I don't think you can prove that no one has ever paid attention to this ranking! And I think the policy that everything should be deleted unless someone proves that it has been mentioned in the "literature" is a bad policy. I don't see why people insist of enforcing it. Articles should be kept if there are people who find them interesting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Yeah, you are right Eric Kvaalen. I can't understand why Fram is interested in Afd, i can't understand is he misusing the feature. I can't understand what is problem in making article that are same but tell a different thing about the topic in a very different way and i can't understand why he is doing Afd in just 24 hours or even one two hours or less after the uploading of the article. This is a literal misuse of the Afd feature. I think talking with the user who created the article should be the first priority and then give atleast one or two week time or giving how much time the creator has asked for to improve is the way of doing things. Everyone here is for improving each others articles not putting Afd on each other articles like what Fram is repeatedly doing. I had already seen Afd on my many articles and some are kind of reasonable for Afd but others like List of B-type Stars, Extending the list of stars to atleast 800ly or even 1,000 ly are not by any means. My B-type Stars article was deleted because why? The reason was that a category was for B-type Stars was there but it doesn't include those many B-type stars that doesn't have it's own article and that was the reason i created but due to the probable misuse of the Afd Feature, It was deleted at the end and i doesn't had time to rescue beacause of my some exam related things and i doesn't have time like Fram to put article on Afd and create problems for the creator.

I think some kind of rules should be establish on giving time to users and knowing there reason and giving time to improve it, if the creator has improved the no need of Afd and if not then the user should be free for discussion of an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This article even has good reference. I nowadays fear to create good articles like before or improve article because of this quick putting of Afd features like what Fram is doing. I can't understand why he is unnecessarily creating problems for creators before the list has completed.

Yes, If the user has created something and left the article alone with no update from other users or creator for months. Then it could be a candidate for an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some basic rules that should be followed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Things to be done before doing an Afd.

These basic rules should be followed before doing an Afd or anything like that. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Infact i am wanting to make a separate list for Giant, Supergiant and Hypergiant Stars, but is in doubt that this guy Fram will probably again do unnecessary drama and at the end will destroy my hard works by misusing the Afd feature like what he want to do with yours article. That is why i am not creating the respective article as of now. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the rationale for this list escapes me. We already have list of brightest stars and List of most luminous stars. This just appears to be an odd conglomeration of the two criteria, hence failing WP:NLIST. How would one even search for such a list? Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Parejkoj below. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A similar, though not identical, list was deleted in the past. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of making that as well. But I can't find enough information. All I know is that the most luminous star closer than Sirius is Alpha Centauri, and Sirius is the most luminous less than or equal to its distance. Beyond that I don't have enough information. I wish the article you mention had not been deleted. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Also not clear to me what the point of this list is. Is there any secondary coverage of this type of ordering of stars? I'm only saying "weak" because this at least is not the kind of list that really needs to be curated once its made (unlike e.g. "list of quasars", which has some dubious entries). - Parejkoj (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AFD. I don't see evidence that this topic is notable and that it's anything other than Wikipedia editors engaging in WP:OR, making lists for the sake of making lists with unending statistical combinations. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather insulting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not.
The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars.
Can you explain how this is not OR, instead of feigning such grievous insult? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete per nom. The subject is not significantly discussed among WP:RS. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:21, 8 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]
  
  What do I need to do improve it? Can you give me advice please? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep A lot of info and very useful. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 09:59, 6 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]
Merge, per jolielover♥ BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thaher's article, as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - there's also an active AfD for the director's main page, and I think including this information there could bolster the case to keep it. (Which already seems substantial.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is better suited to be a section on his page rather than a whole page on its own. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main page of the subject. Orientls (talk) 08:05, 10 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]
Merge to Punjab FC#Records and statistics per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 7 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]
Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain since they are reviewed together, I think that makes sense. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Spain given the size of the list and the fact it shares both the guide and ceremony with Spain. Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:49, 9 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) saying no 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]

How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 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]
This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[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]

Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2607. jp×g🗯️ 04:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting page with enough sourcing to appear valid. Doesn’t directly pertain to either games or Buddha and would be a distraction on either site. 02:16, 10 May 2025 (EST)

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]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Conheça Walt Disney World

Lists

Proposed deletions