Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists Information & Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists Links at HealthHaven.com

Points of interest related to Lists on Wikipedia
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

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:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users 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.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

[edit] Lists

[edit] List of Disney princes

(Find sources: "List of Disney princes" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A non-notable list of characters with no inclusion criteria and totally random. Those characters in the list that have met Wikipedia:Notability have their own pages. Unlike Disney Princess or Disney Villains, this is not even a franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How is there no inclusion criteria? "Prince" characters in official Disney movies seems fairly well defined, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are users who insist in adding characters that are not princes like the captain from Mulan or the thief from Rapunzel, but remove actual princes like Simba from The Lion King only because he is not human. But even if it had a criteria, it is still a collection of non-notable, redundant material. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, any content issues with the article itself should certainly be dealt with, but this hardly seems to be the appropriate venue for doing so. I don't really have an opinion on the notability of the list (which is something that should be established in the lead of the article... although, lists tend to be less beholden to notability then regular articles in my experience). Stating that this is a redundant list grabs my attention, though. What is it redundant to?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is redundant since all information on the characters in it is already covered in their own articles and/or in the plot of the films. What is the next step? List of Disney males? As I stated in the nomination, it is not even a franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I thought that you meant that there was a similar list elsewhere. I don't find the argument that the information exists elsewhere to be convincing. For one thing, you can say the exact same thing about any list on Wikipedia. Lists compile existing information into one central locale; that's their reason for being.

Anyway, I just won't cast a !vote. The article certainly needs work, but deletion doesn't seem necessary. It could be deleted though, if no one wants to work on the article itself, I guess. I was really just curious about the reasoning in the nomination, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I can see how it will lead to problems, but a good article could be written on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The existence of Category:Fictional princes implies that editors don't generally find it hard to identify princes, but if "Disney princes" aren't a franchise (as noted by Lord Opeth) then there's no particular reason to have a list of them. Even if this page is kept, the plot summaries should be cut. EALacey (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Looks good to me. Individually notable. Seems a reasonable and appropriate list of interest and use to our readers. A merge might be worth considering, but the existence of a broader category doesn't negate the worth and appropriateness of this list article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per EALacey's reasoning.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete and include entries in a Category:Princes in Disney productions cat. --EEMIV (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:CLS, lists are not superseded by categories. The assertion that the topic is not notable is not supported by any evidence. In fact, if one does due diligence, per WP:BEFORE, one finds that there is an entire book about this topic and much commentary in other sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about the RMS Titanic

(Find sources: "List of films about the RMS Titanic" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Meager, incomplete, too-short list. These individual films are covered more completely in other articles and templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If it's incomplete or too short, this can be fixed by editing. Unless a more complete list exists, I don't see a good case for deletion. If such a list does exist it would be helpful to identify it here.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture; both articles are incomplete, it would be WP:BETTER to moosh them together than to delete either one. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a Merge looks like a sensible approach.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture per Michig. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep and no merge to a pop culture article. I can't say that I understand the nomination. The events of April 15, 1912, have been the subject of many movies, even more so than December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor) or November 22, 1963 (JFK assassination). The nominator suggests that there are more films than the fifteen that are referred to here, hence the trinity of meager, incomplete, too short), which is a reason to add. Still, fifteen films out of the last 97 years is a lot. Under no circumstances should this be merged into the mostly stupid "in popular culture" article. Instead, the serious film section of that article can be merged into this one, rather than sharing a stall with the list of hilarious references to the disaster in SpongeBob and The Simpsons and Zack and Cody, etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this approach as well, if the commentary from the "in pop culture" article was merged in with this one; better to give some context for those films that simply a list of names. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge as suggested above. There is already a list of films in that article. That seems like a better place for this list. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge as suggested above. Titanic as a cultural touchstone is notable, but it's hard to see how twisting the untimely deaths of over 1,500 people into a Nazi propaganda piece or a trite, hackneyed melodrama (IMHO) is really any less "stupid" than a mention in Spongebob Square Pants. All are parts of pop culture; there's no need to have separate lists. --NellieBly (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to RMS Titanic in popular culture per suggestions above. Oh how I despise X in Popular Culture articles. :( JBsupreme (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge to RMS Titanic in popular culture. Much as I dislike IPC articles, it does already exist and there is no valid reason for two of them, nor is the list so long that it cant cover it in both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch

(Find sources: "List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The article is simply a long list of creatures from the Lilo & Stitch franchise, with little encyclopedic value or notability; mainly fancruft, and violates WP:NOT. Additional problems besides that of notability includes a long-standing lack of sources as well as a primarily in-universe writing style. KaySL (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Nothing much has changed from the last AFD, so I'll just restate my Keep last time:

I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: shouldn't the content from this article be migrated and merged with the episode list then, if this article is so integral to the episodes? Granted, it wouldn't be a quick task, but as it stands, the actual content-to-length ratio is very low. KaySL (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for merging it into the List of Lilo & Stitch characters, perhaps only the most relevant characters (Sparky, Angel, Reuben and Leroy). --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Educational Institutions in Karaikal

(Find sources: "List of Educational Institutions in Karaikal" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article page should actually have been a category rather than a separate page. I propose we delete the page and have a category instead. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's a valid list for educational institutions in the region and no reason it can not coexist with a category. Of the 49 items in the list, only #49 appears to be not notable for its own article, while I can't say for sure about #46 and #47. Everything else, can actually be articles per our notability guidelines, and having this list seems to be a very valid option now. -SpacemanSpiff 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: There is nothing wrong with this being a list. Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - lists and categories coexist. The way forward is to link each item, with the red links providing signposts for article development. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I do think that lists and categories can coexist and don't need to be mutually exclusive. I suggest this be considered my taking back my request for delete. I change my proposal to Keep ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Montenegro Airlines destinations

(Find sources: "Montenegro Airlines destinations" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Wikipedia is not a directory but this is article is nothing but a directory - of destinations served by a particular airline. Created to "move from main article", but it's such a short list that seems unneccessary. Also has no context or content other than links so speedy deletable on two counts, but I'm assuming context will follow. I42 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep As already explained, all airlines that fly to more than 10 destinations have dedicated destinations articles; this one is no exception. Please refer to the project guidelines at WP:Airlines before nominating this for deletion for a third time. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Jasepl. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge back into Montenegro Airlines. The main article and this destinations article are not so long that they need to be separate. Contrary to Jasepl, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content says, "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article." (Emphasis added.) "Could", not "must". Anyway, even if it did say "must", that would not be binding on the community at AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that the guidelines say "could". However, refer here and you will find a large number of articles that will meet the delete-and-merge-back criteria that you explained above. And it would be perfectly fine to merge the Montenegro Airlines destinations article back into the main article, if the same thing were done for all of the other similar articles. Why selectively treat one article differently than another? Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I have no idea what Jasepl means by "nominating this for deletion for a third time". Montenegro Airlines destinations has not existed long enough to have been nominated for deletion before this first time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I42 attempted a speedy delete before listing it here. Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    - To be pedantic, it was a PROD nomination. I42 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge Just because other articles exist, for airline destinations, does not mean that it has to be done. There is no inherent right of existence for any such article. Forseeably, this one can improve, and maybe it was nominated too quickly. However, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of airports, and its only source is a broken link, so I have no way to verify it. The content can be summarized in a single paragraph-- "Montenegro Airlines has service to airports in Austria (Vienna), Croatia (Zagreb), Denmark (Copenhagen), France (Paris), Germany (Dusseldorf and Frankfurt), Italy (Milan and Rome), Macedonia (Skopje), Montenegro (Podgorica and Tivat), Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg), Serbia (Belgrade, Nis, and Pristina), Slovenia (Ljubljana), Switzerland (Zurich), and the United Kingdom (London Gatwick Airport)." Throw in a link for people who want to know such things as flight times and numbers, and one will have improved the article about the airline. This article is essentially uninformative and tells us zero about Montenegro Airlines itself. The only arguments for keep appear to be that it's an honor of some sort if an airline has its own Wikipedia article about its destinations. Believe me, it isn't. Mandsford (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep, consensus has been reached at WP:Airlines that a suitable length for a destination list article is at least ten destinations, particularly if these are in multiple countries. I counted nineteen in a dozen countries, so this article should be well over the limit. See for instance Braathens destinations for how such an article would look when it is near the quality of a featured list nomination. As with all lists, the bare structure often looks minimal, but when a relevant framework and formatting is established, it is suitable as a stand-alone article. But just like stubs, we dont' delete them just because they currently are not full length. The information can easily be confirmed at the company's web site, so the issue of non-references not important, although it would be much preferred if references were added. If there is disagreement about the consensus at the wikiproject, it would probably be better to discuss there to see if the community consensus for such an article has changed. This was established a number of years ago after a community-wide discussion of the nature and need for destination lists (that in participation went far beyond active members of WP:Airlines). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If an Elvis Presley project decided to create an article on every Elvis tribute act, that would not supercede the requirement that each separate article met WP:N and WP:MUSIC - no project can override the wider Wikipedia consensus. So I think for the purpose of this AfD we must ignore the Airlines project and consider whether the article meets general Wikipedia policy alone. If the conclusion is that it does not then the Airlines project needs to re-examine its objectives because, as is noted above, the are many articles very much like this one which have been created because of it. I42 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - We have lists of destinations for lots of airlines, and this airline's list of destinations is long enough. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of creatures in Primeval

(Find sources: "List of creatures in Primeval" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unnotable list of fictional creatures from the Primeval series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and series already has a List of Primeval characters for discussions specific creators relavant to the series. Bulk of article "sources" are from the series and other primarily sources, with other actual reliable sources being used for WP:OR to "prove" personal views about the creators while not actually referencing the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. There appears to be sources from Metro, Digital Spy and Radio Times amongst others, therefore establishing notability. WossOccurring (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually look at those sources? The Digital Spy article is about Flemyng and Rouass joining the cast, and is not significant coverage of neither the "Dracorex" section where it is used nor the topic as a whole. The Radio Times article is an interview with the creators and again, not significant coverage of neither the "Pristichampsus" nor the topic as a whole. The Metro article never even MENTIONS the series at all, it is purely about sabre-tooth cats. Again, what notability has been established for this topic? None at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep but it needs serious work, particularly distinguishing the background about the RL creatures from their role in the series. I'm glad we've gotten away from the absurdity of trying to make individual articles on each individual creature, as we might have done 2 years ago. I don't see any real overlap with List of Primeval characters. I gather the nom correctly thinks the characters list an appropriate article--and then so is this. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not. There is a major difference (and please don't presume to guess what I think about the character list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete: poorly sourced and full of OR. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are editorial issues and are not excuses to delete articles. WossOccurring (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep "Characters" pages certainly do not cover the same ground. And is it kosher to do an AFD without any discussion or even mention on the talk page? And while I have the article on my "Watch" list, I didn't notice this change till today, as adding the AFD tag was described, very disingenuously I think, as "add missing tag", so I didn't bother to even look at the page when I saw the notification. Was that deliberate? And doing it at Christmas also seems designed to get under the radar of interested parties. And -- the link to "this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" is broken/red, by design, accident or carelessness, I don't know. Took me 10 minutes to find this page. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you express any more good faith there?. Twinkle messed up in adding the tag, so I fixed it, and didn't realize the template didn't pick up the page name the way it made it sound like it would. Doing it on Christmas is irrelevant. Wikipedia is active enough, the AfD is 7 days long, and not everyone celebrates. Why don't you reread WP:AGF and then rethink your "keep" argument, which doesn't even give a keep reason beyond you seem to mistakenly think it was done in a bad manner and like it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It still looks very suspicious. Everything seemed to have been designed to let it slip by without anyone noticing and made it difficult to object. Just putting "add missing tag" for an AFD? Give me a break. I had to troll back and forward through the history to find when the AFD was made before I could even find this page, linked to the date. That removed any initial assumption of good will. What do you mean by "series already has a List of Primeval characters"? Are you suggesting all the beasts should be put there? Doesn't seem appropriate. And my other reasons for "Keep" have been expressed well enough by others, above and in the previous AFD, so I will just add my vote. Barsoomian (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Extend AfD period I am a disinterested party to the contents of the article, but I find the discussion about timing and flagging to be of interest. How the AfD was done, and its timing, are not directly relevant to the suitability of the end-product article. However, adding another 7 days to this discussion should be acceptable to both sides, and put an end to the potential for incivility.DaveCW (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is really not a useful suggestion. He obviously found the AfD fairly quickly, and it was easily findable by looking on the AfD log. At most, extending it 4 days because that's how long it took anyone to notice the link was broken is all that would be needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet

(Find sources: "List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unnotable list of fictional extraterrestrial species from a single Discovery series special. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Even the main article is unreferenced and shows no notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support—The article is filled with original research: the only reference that I know of is the television episode, and I suspect some of the accounts here are "tainted" by reference to the Barlowe book on which the show was based. (Disclaimer: I was one of the scientists featured on the show.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks citations to third-party sources; no claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment seems to be a bit extensive for a catalog of content in one 94-minute television show. Suggest that the content be trimmed and merged into the main article. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete due to article consisting of only detail from the primary source, the TV special itself. Dreamt-up (fictional) topics need real-world context. This does not have it. Erik (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

merge , since its just a single show, and doesn't need elaborate treatment. The delete nomination implies that none of the information should be kept, and I see no justification for saying that, as it does meet WP:V, sourced for the work itself is appropriate and sufficient to meet WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no information to be kept. The main article already has the show description. Nothing else is needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep The show is notable because of the extraterrestrial life on it, then you can't have a complete article without mentioning it. Its fine to put it here, in a side article, it not fitting too well in the main one. Dream Focus 03:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Excessive amounts of plot information for a 1.5h show, Alien Planet#Plot already does the job just fine (in length). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to Alien planet; the show clearly meets the requirement for notability, but this might be excessive for a single documentary show. I'm sure this much detail isn't needed.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. if this content is taken from the book by barlowe, its copyvio. if its not, its original research. nuff said. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no verbatim copying from Expedition. On the other hand, I think some of the critters were fleshed out with information from the book, since the TV show wasn't all that specific. But I could be wrong; it could be OR instead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

good points. i think what i meant to say is that since the book is essentially a fictional account of a survey of this planet, any significantly detailed descriptions of these fictional life forms is duplicating the very substance and point of the book. why would you need to purchase the book if the descriptions here are fairly accurate. combine that with scanned images from teh book that surely can be found on the internet, and we have a defacto copyright violation with us as a conduit for it. if this was a novel with alien descriptions as secondary to the plot, i could see brief descriptions being ok here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of ISO image software

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of ISO image software

Articles for deletion/List of ISO image software (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: "List of ISO image software" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Nomination description: This page is content fork of Comparison of ISO image software and contains similar information, only formatted differently. There is no need to keep two copies of the same information.

Reason for re-nomination: I am renominating this page for deletion, because the last nomination was abruptly halted when Hm2k (talk · contribs) claimed that he has merged the pages. Well, he tricked us: He just copied the contents of Comparison of ISO image software into List of ISO image software, thus causing the original reason for nomination (similarity of contents) to remain unresolved. He further reverted my attempt to delete the duplicate information. I suggest the nominated contents to be deleted. (I'm also suggesting disciplinary action but that is beside the matter.) Fleet Command (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge The list and comparison contain different information, I will restore the merge. Once merged the content can be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update Remerge has now been completed. If you would like to discuss improving the content, please use the talk page. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying. We do not fall for your lies this time. There is something called "page history" . You didn't merge. You just appended. Content Fork problem persists. Hiding the problem doesn't solve anything. Content Fork issues should be discussed and resolved through consensus not through such acts of bad faith. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Comparison of ISO image software now redirects to List of ISO image software#Comparison. Armbrust (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Fleet Command

Not anymore. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge was completed. Content concerns can be discussed using talk. This can be closed. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Another deception. Perhaps our fellow Wikipedian Hm2k (talk · contribs) is under the impression that we are computers or robots and hiding the problem would solve it. It is not. We are human editors aimed to deliver reliable knowledge to human. Procedures like deletion and talk page are all means to aid in this endeavor and not means with which to bash one another. To that end, the problem of content fork (presence of duplicate contents) on Wikipedia, which hampers the effective delivery of knowledge and causes confusing and loss of time, must be resolved: Either by deleting a copy of duplicate content or by proper merging.

Now, Hm2k has selected a deceptive path: To trick us into thinking that the issue is resolved by keeping both copies of problematic content in the same article and undoing any attempt to resolve this issue, only because he has personal problems with me, FleetCommand (talk · contribs).

Either delete one of the two copy or merge properly. Only then, I will abandon the matter.

Thanks

— Fleet Command (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Hm2k: Threatening to ban me from Wikipedia, for doing the right thing, won't stop me from doing the right thing. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling troll and won't be engaging you in discussion any further. Intervention is required, you have been reported. --Hm2k (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I commented out some borderline personal attacks. Let's try to stay civil here. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge properly. There should only be a single table of information (with a single row for each program).
The content belongs at the page title [Comparison of ...], though it might be better to merge the content into the [List of ...] article first, as it has the oldest/original information, and then pagemove/rename that to [Comparison of ...] once the merge is properly completed.
Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing if you'd like advice on the specifics of formatting, layout, column content, etc.
Be nice, be calm. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the comparison article. The comparison article is more mature and this list is just redundant. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Original Intent

I copy-edited this list a long time ago. I standardized the descriptions somewhat, using defined words to indicate capabilities. I did not intend for this article to be a comparison but a true list. A true list has benefits such as

Lists are easy to add on to
Lists focus on descriptions

I agree that this article has been turned into a comparison and has become nearly redundant, although the descriptions here are still formatted nicely and display better than the crammed-up table in the comparison article. If we do not have volunteer support to return this article to list format, then it should probably be deleted. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect The merge is good enough, but we should retain the page history & also have only a single article. I'm surprised at the vitriolic comments here. --Karnesky (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spanish words of English origin

(Find sources: "List of Spanish words of English origin" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Endorsed prod that was declined by another user. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is this encyclopedic. Both of those would be reasons even assuming it was well sourced, but this is not that either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete problem is with this kind of lists that many entries are not sourced and thus are original research, some words may be in fact of German origin given that some English words are similar to German or even Dutch. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - I might add that the prod-decliner referenced another, somewhat narrower, subsegment of borrowed words. I might think that some small segment of borrowed words would be unique and therefore encyclopedic, so I don't think that's especially relevant here, which is a hugely encompassing list (english borrowed from nearly every language it could), but maybe that argument comes up here. I would point out too that a tremendours majority of every word english adopted of latin is going to be a plausible candidate for inclusion on a list of Spanish words of english origin (of course that kind of list we typically call a dictionary). Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that point as well, many English words have Latin or French roots...and many Spanish words also have Latin or French roots. it just becomes original research, even linguists dispute origins of words. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete even if sourced, since its a list of spanish words, the references would all be in spanish, thus really not appropriate here. belongs on spanish WP if anywhere once sourced. we could make a case for a list of english words of spanish origin, but for me the standard for such a list would be pretty high, not a casual creation.oh, that exists here, and guess what, its not well sourced!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep along with the other four members of Category:Lists of Spanish words of foreign origin. See previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin which was resolved as Keep in 2008. Several contributors agreed that discussion of linguistic origins is an encyclopedic theme; and whereas mere etymologies are dictionary articles, wordlists are encyclopedic. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete a discussion of linguistic origins might be encyclopaedic, but this isn't such a discussion. This is just an unsourced list of words with rough gloss translations. See Wiktionary:Category:es:English derivations the category that contains dictionary definitions in English of Spanish of English origin. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate or trivial list. As Thryduulf suggests, and contra Fayenatic, there is no discussion of linguistic origins or Spanish etymologies on this page or a page related to it. It is simply a list of words that serves no encyclopedic purpose. Cnilep (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Mercurywoodrose: "belongs on spanish WP if anywhere once sourced. we could make a case for a List of English words of Spanish origin [which we do actually have], but for me the standard for such a list would be pretty high". I agree with Fayenetic that the [...words of Nahuatl origin] list is a good list, but would suggest that this list, and List of Spanish words of Italic origin and List of Spanish words of African origin are better left for es: to deal with (at least initially). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why it would be acceptable at the Spanish Wikipedia and not here. If it is acceptable at the Spanish Wikipedia, then it should be acceptable here (though in English and not Spanish). Notability does not change if we switch languages. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary, as an appendix. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Lego Star Wars (video game series). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games

(Find sources: "List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This entire article is straight up a list of who's-in-what-games, by each game. There's no way to cut it other than this is game guide material as we wouldn't do this for weapon lists or other items related to a game series, and as a result serves no real purpose to inform the reader of, well, anything at all to be honest other than, well... just who appeared in which title. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge whatever possible to Lego Star Wars or delete. This is essentially just a list of characters, which is usable for game guides only. JIP | Talk 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Merge as the simple default solution to this kind of material. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok w/ Delete or Merge - I did some maintenance to this article because it looked downright awful, but truthfully I can't deny it falls under WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Second: I just created an article for the video games themselves - Lego Star Wars (video game series) - the character list should be merged there, perhaps in a "playable characters" section, but not to the main Lego Star Wars article. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nitrome Limited skins

(Find sources: "List of Nitrome Limited skins" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This was PRODded as "utterly, boringly non-notable", and I have to say I agree; however the author wrote on the talk page "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted because its "boring"." He didn't remove the PROD, but I'm afraid, in the spirit of WP:PROD and WP:BITE, that has to be taken as a dePROD. No, the article shouldn't be deleted because it is boring, but because the subject is not notable - there is no evidence of independent comment on these skins - and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete -- I had seconded the PROD, and I don't see a reason to think the original proposer necessarily meant that this article was both boring and non-notable, rather than simply being non-notable in a boring way, which I think it is. Some articles are flagrantly, outrageously non-notable. That aside, while Nitrome itself seems notable I have not been able to find that the list of its skins is; and while it may be useful to some people to collect this information here, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Utter, boring trivia. The matter is given more than adequate coverage in Nitrome#Skins and no redirect is needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - No notability for a stand-alone article. --Teancum (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of Nostalgia Chick episodes

(Find sources: "List of Nostalgia Chick episodes" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888 ^Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I'll add what I can to the article in the near future (although I'm on holiday and don't have a lot of time right now). Lindsay Ellis, the Nostalgia Chick, is an internet celebrity with a popular series and is therefore notable. Googling for Nostalgia Chick, Lindsay Ellis or even Nostalgia Chick Lindsay Ellis should confirm that. It seems reasonable to me to have a list of episodes on Wikipedia. (Also, it should be pointed out that this is a list of episodes, with a defined beginning and end; the term "web clips" could be read as a loaded term in implying incompleteness on inconsequentialty.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the series doesn't even have an article, if she's so notable then perhaps an article should be created for her or for the show itself before we even think of having a list of episodes. As for your google links, they don't suggest any notability in the slightest, the top 3 hits are facebook, myspace and Twitter - not a good sign, and most of the rest are blogs, forums and reposts of the video themselves.--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should have a Nostalgia Chick page which includes a list of episodes, the list of episodes shouldn't have a stand-alone article in my opinion. I dunno if there are any wikipedia rules about lists having stand-alone articles or such, that's just my opinion.
HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

(Find sources: "List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Completely unsourced list of trivia. Not one single reference in the article to classify it as anything other than original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article is merely an excessive listing of statistics and trivia. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The article may lack references at the moment, but I've no doubt one could find national media coverage for a large majority of winners. I can't see that this list is more excessive than, say, University Challenge#Winners. EALacey (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My final answer is keep, but try to remove those who lost on the last question. Plus, I am not the person who created this article.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Chris
Lock in keep. Maybe there are not many references in this article, but I think the article is important as a part of WWTBAM project.
Keep - trivial in the wider context of world affairs, I agree, but significant in the context of the programme. This is a world-wide record of those who have achieved the ultimate goal of competing in what is, internationally, a hugely popular show. OTOH, I would find it much harder to justify in-depth national lists such as Milionerzy notable contestants. This is actually not OR since the content can be verified against recordings of the show though, editorially, it does need significant work on sourcing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - although it is a list, this list does not seem to exist in a reliable source outside of wikipedia, so it is useful. However I agree with removing the biggest prize losers, and Asen Angelov if a cite cannot be found. This list is not now OR as I have provided a few references, and I don't think it is indiscriminate as there are very strict criteria for inclusion. Martin451 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep - useful list, part of a project, under construction, more reliable sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox parishes in Arkansas

(Find sources: "Orthodox parishes in Arkansas" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

At a previous AfD, I made the tactical mistake of bundling 5 lists together. Now, let's go one by one. Would anyone like to argue that a list of seven non-notable parishes constitutes a notable topic for a list? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge with parent pages for their respective jurisdictions. This is not an article but a collection of external links. This idea could be revisited if and when there is an actual article to write on the Orthodox presence in Arkansas. Until then this is list cruft. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete How bizarre that there's no List of Orthodox parishes in the United States, but we've got someone making individual articles for Alaska, California, D.C., etc. I have a feeling that someone did it that way because they didn't want to make an incomplete article. The solution isn't fifty-one separate articles. This is something one would work on in user space. Maybe one of the five articles is "really, really good" and it can be renamed and the other state articles can be merged to it. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete there are other articles like this, such as Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C. and List of Orthodox parishes in Alaska, but they too have the same troubles that this one does. The collection itself isn't notable, and there's no valuable content worth merging elsewhere, as it all consists of improper external links. I suppose an encyclopedic article can be written about this subject, examining the history of the churches and of the religion in Arkansas, but the directory information that is here wouldn't be a part of that article. Them From Space 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep -- I do not see why a list article of this kind is objectionable, but it should be List of Orthodox parishes in Arkansas. We also have Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes in the United States, which is also appropriate. I list article for whole US would probably not be. The possible problem with this article is that it is a mere link farm, but I am not sure that that is objectionable: the article covers various denominations, and is thus somethign that would not be readily available elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, a List of Orthodox parishes in the United States would be quite appropriate, since the number of these that are notable is quite small. If we thus meaningfully restricted the list (à la List of churches that are National Historic Landmarks in the United States, as opposed to pure directory material like List of churches in Sweden), then I don't see a problem with that. But a list of external links to seven parishes, none of which is remotely notable on its own? That seems a stretch in notability terms.
- As to the "not readily available elsewhere" argument: well, perhaps. But since when is aggregating information not readily available elsewhere our function? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] List of post-disco artists and songs

(Find sources: "List of post-disco artists and songs" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article is a list of random songs produced or performed in the post-disco era. Most of the references in the article are not reliable (discogs/dusty groove), while most of the rest are either blogs or misinterpreted and such. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - ridiculous and arbitrary list and WP:SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Oh yeah, WP:SYNTH is getting down tonight. Boogie and delete! Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - i propose to delete most of unsourced WP:Synth's and keep only sourced items. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep I think this is a problem that every second list of songs/artists/shoes/booze/etc suffers. It's all about time. We should wait for more reliable sources. Some songs should be deleted, but I think deletion is not a good idea, but fixation is a change, that we can trust in. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep I think that by limiting this to the sourced items, and by providing additional (and sourced) context that explains "post-disco", this can be a worthwhile spinoff of post-disco. I recognize that there's the opportunity for all sorts of jokes about disco music in general, but I'll forgo attempts at humor in this instance, since the author is striving to link to reliable and verifiable sources. Most articles don't bother. To the extent that there are problems with original synthesis, they can be fixed, particularly by limiting this to songs where that label was applied. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Post-disco is a real genre, so listing things that fall into it, is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Post disco is also up for AFD. at least one of the songs on this list is not described in its article as post disco, but only as performed by a disco artist. we really would need each song on this list to have a solid reference calling it "post disco". if kept, it needs to be trimmed back to only those which are sourced as such.im currently undecided about whether to delete either or both articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think that's likely to be good enough, given that the problem with post-disco seems to be that anything after disco gets called "post-disco" in reviews and the like, whatever the genre. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is "after the disco"? There's nothing after the disco. Post-disco is just some kind of eighties movement. That's all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  - excellent points. i guess we would need a group of well respected music journalists/scholars giving a consensus for a description of a particular style of music that they call post-disco, with their choices as examples of the genre, before either article here is valid.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    - AMG calls it "genre" and this Thriller (album) review emphasize post-disco as "genre" too (and unreliable source last.fm saying it too). Some call it "boogie", but mostly it isn't clear if sources saying "post-disco" is a genre or after disco movement (that's why this AfD). It's so unclear about that. It's the same problem as in dance-pop or alternative dance articles. Yes, we need some experts. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lists

[edit] List of Disney princes

[edit] List of films about the RMS Titanic

[edit] List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch

[edit] List of Educational Institutions in Karaikal

[edit] Montenegro Airlines destinations

[edit] List of creatures in Primeval

[edit] List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet

[edit] List of ISO image software

[edit] Original Intent

[edit] List of Spanish words of English origin

[edit] List of characters in the Lego Star Wars games

[edit] List of Nitrome Limited skins

[edit] List of Nostalgia Chick episodes

[edit] List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

[edit] Orthodox parishes in Arkansas

[edit] List of post-disco artists and songs