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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival[edit]

Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film festival that appears to have existed for only three or four years (it no longer appears on the website of its sponsoring organization). Sources in the article are limited to the sponsoring organization and local press coverage. Internet searching provided nothing more than additional local coverage and passing mentions. The festival is non-notable and does not satisfy either the general notability guidelines or WP:NORG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All sources appear to be self-references or purely WP:LOCAL. No sign of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice essay. Of course, under it we can delete many topics without national headlines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 Flanaess. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veluna[edit]

Veluna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Flanaess. No sign of general notability, no sources other than D&D reference materials. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not include 3rd party citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Flanaess. This is just a more specific page on a more broad topic that is notable, so I don't see why I should favor deletion over merging. Power~enwiki's suggestion for a redirect is a bit unusual, considering the fact that there is no information on Veluna itself on Flanaess. Borderlandor (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, if necessary, merge, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Flanaess per K.e.coffman. Zero citations = WP:V/CITE Fail = Nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as "keep", as there are no arguments in favor of pure deletion. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller[edit]

Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Found one source, subject does not have any notability for himself. Fails WP:BIO. Here is the source: http://hudsonriverzeitgeist.com/home/2016/7/3/a-trip-to-the-forgotten-birthplace-of-american-historys-richest-man Rogermx (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added 12 book sources - and there are more. He clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Rockefeller family. Being the "father of the Rockefeller family" does not make him notable. WP:INVALIDBIO says "relationships do not confer notability". Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  He meets WP:SIGCOV - so he's clearly notable. Numerous book references, covering him in depth (several paragraphs), going back at least a century (from 1905 or so - and possibly earlier references can be found). Quoting from WP:INVALIDBIO - That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A);. In this case significant coverage has been found on A. Why do people find him notable? Perhaps due to giving rise to the Rockefeller line - however that is true of numerous medieval nobles. e.g. Ansegisel,Anna of Brunswick-Grubenhagen-Einbeck, Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, Bertrand III of Baux, or Louise-Jeanne Tiercelin de La Colleterie. As significant coverage exists of him (much more so than many nobles which have an entry) - he meets the criteria for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not very persuasive. If there is significant coverage, then he is notable. If there isn't, the fact that pages exist for other equally less-than-notable people only means that more deletions need to be proposed, not that this page needds to be retained - it should stand or fall on its own merits, not the deficits of other pages. So, the question is, do the added sources represent significant coverage, or just passing reference? Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding significant coverage, my main argument rests on coverage in Chernow 2007, Flynn 1933, and Nevins 1940. The first chapter of Chernow, called the Flim Flam Man is about William, Godfrey's son, and discusses Godfrey across 6 or so pages, covering most of the material in this article. So while the chapter is a biography of William, Godfrey is a significant character, not just as Williams father, but also as a distinct individual. Chapter 1 of Flynn is titled Michigan Hill and is about Godfrey and William, discussing Godfrey across 5 pages or so pages, again covering most of the material in this article. Nevins 1940 is available o google books only in snippet view, but again covers most of the material in this article across multiple pages. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes NPOV, NOR, V, N, etc. At the outset the article was basically genealogical, but it seems to me now to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned things up a bit. I've also removed a number of the references User:Icewhiz added, leaving 6 which I think are pretty strong and one more which is genealogical and which provides birth dates for their children. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add that just because an individual's fame is inherited, does not mean his notability cannot be established. This individual is certainly only famous because his grandson was famous. But given that he is himself famous and has received significant coverage in multiple sources, I do think he is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As the nominator, I appreciate efforts to add more information. I would change from Delete to Merge with the Rockefeller Family article as a good solution. I still do not believe it merits its own article. Rogermx (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By merits, do you mean that you do not believe that the coverage in reliable sources is significantly in depth? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm skeptical that there is any material here that should be merged into Rockefeller family. That page currently mentions Godfrey and is already very long and somewhat well organized and adding detail into the life of a family member who did not achieve fame except through his famous progeny would not add to that article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rockefeller family. I might have said delete, as his only claim to fame is inherited from his grandson. However, a summary of this article will usefully fill out the very brief "family background" section there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just read the "Michigan Hill" chapter in the Flynn book, it describes Godfrey in a few brief sentences as a shiftless, thriftless alcoholic who moved to Tioga NY, made a bad land deal and had children. That is it. The chapter is really about Bill Rockefeller. It does not constitute significant coverage of Godfrey. Rogermx (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rockefeller family as per above. There are issues with the notability of the subject. For notability multiple uses of the same source counts as one and passing mention (not "significantly in depth") does not count. The article states as fact that the subject was born in Albany, New York but the references give multiple possible locations as the birth place is not actually known. "Notability (people)" states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.". And having a son that became famous does not match any of those. That slippery slope would mean all Rockefeller's and Avery's would get an article. All we would need to do is list the same sources 3 or 4 times, a genealogical source (for birthdays) and point out the relationship to the famous person. Otr500 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2017 (*UTC)

• Comment - The keep !votes relate to GNG. Rogermx, the nominator, disagrees with me that Flynn's coverage of Godfrey is in depth enough to satisfy GNG, which is fine. I think if a published book discusses and individuals character, his career, and his family, as Flynn does, that is quite a bit of depth. The other !votes are concerned that his most important claim to significance is through his progeny, which is valid and reflected in the article, but such a claim to fame may not always lead to notability issues. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As an encyclopedia - we should be there when someone looks up someone due to their more famous descendants - particularly when passing GNG. An encyclopedia query of "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is an entirely valid one for someone reading about the numerous Rockefellers. The answer does indeed turn out to be a mostly nobody (He did however name a tract of land that became a state forest - Michigan Hills NY State Forest) - but that nobody passed GNG - as there is copious, well written, and detailed information about him - well beyond what we have on several other figures. We have many nobodies that pass GNG. If they do - they should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not meant to be the source of all information. If it were, we would be adding millions of people who appear in obituaries, census records, birth announcements, etc. etc. Personally, I don't believe in adding aristocrats to Wikipedia simply because they came from a "noble" family. Rogermx (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The query "who the heck was Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller?" is best responded to with a redirect to Rockefeller family. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Icewhiz. MB298 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with zero !votes. I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Jamaica, Ottawa[edit]

High Commission of Jamaica, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. all this confirms is the high commission exists. and embassies are not inherently notable. also nominating:

• Embassy of Colombia, Ottawa
• Embassy of Afghanistan in Ottawa
• Embassy of Argentina, Ottawa
• Embassy of Latvia, Ottawa
• Embassy of Switzerland, Ottawa LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is there a policy on embassies? An embassy is not an organization, it's a place of residence and work for a head of state. It projects the authority and influence of that head of state into the surrounding area, and carries at least as much influence as any organization or person that reports to it. I would keep all of these. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing inherent notability when there is no guideline which says that. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are these supposed to be notable as physical buildings, or as diplomatic missions? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as diplomatic missions they have no inherent notability as many have been d well deleted. If the building is proven notable then they may be notable. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them appear architecturally notable: as far as I can tell, they're either office suites in larger buildings or ordinary houses. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace). There appears to be a fairly strong consensus against keeping the article at this time. What to do with it is not as clear. However, a preponderance favors redirection which I think works. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CKUR-FM[edit]

CKUR-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which received a license from the CRTC to launch literally yesterday, but has not yet actually commenced broadcasting. WP:NMEDIA, however, does not permit advance articles about stations that still only exist on paper -- it requires that the station is actually on the air before it qualifies for an article (per the criterion about "established broadcast history".) In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company -- but there actually has to be a signal getting transmitted before it becomes eligible for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You'd have a point if it was a proposed radio station that had applied for but not yet been granted a license but given that a license has been approved and it will be going on the air within a year there's no reason to delete. We've had articles for radio and TV stations not yet on the air before for instance CJRU and CIND-FM both hard articles a year or so before going on the air. If the article is deemed premature then Merge with Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace) which is the company that owns the station. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. NMEDIA explicitly states that on the air is the condition, and "licensed but not yet launched" is WP:TOOSOON. It is not rare for a station to get a license but then fail to launch and have its license expire, which is why NMEDIA has been tightened up to require that we wait until the station is on the air. What we did the better part of a decade ago is irrelevant to what we do now — and ever since the comprehensive cleanup project in which we ended up having to delete hundreds of articles about licensed stations that never launched and had their licenses expire unbuilt, consensus changed and what we do now is wait until the station has launched.

Also, CJRU never had a premature article at all — The Scope already existed as a fully operational Internet radio service that was able to clear WP:GNG on those grounds regardless of whether it cleared our notability standards for AM/FM radio stations or not. It had an article for clearing GNG as an active internet radio service, not for being a licensed but as yet unlaunched terrestrial radio station. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And CIND-FM? In any case, do you have any objection to merging the article with Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace)? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIND-FM falls under "what we did before all the phantom articles about stations that never existed forced consensus about this issue to change". As for merging, kindly note the part of my nomination statement where I explicitly stated that "In the meantime, the license can certainly be discussed in Media in Vancouver and the article on its parent company". Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are not requesting a deletion but a merge. Perhaps the AFD template can be swapped with a mergeto template then. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content that has to go into the company's article would not be a full verbatim merger of everything present here, but a brief one or two sentence acknowledgement of the fact that the license was granted. And furthermore, the call sign is only presumptive at this time — since it hasn't been formally assigned by Industry Canada as of yet, the fact that NNB used this call sign in its application does not mean they're necessarily going to get this call sign. (That's not a simple formality of a station automatically getting any call sign it wants — there are reasons why a station might not get the call sign it presumptively gave itself in the application process. See CKLU-FM for an example of that very thing happening.) So there aren't grounds for the call sign to be redirected to the company article either, which would also be required by a "merge" proposal. So for both of those reasons, I'm not requesting a "merger" at this time — the content is more than we can justify at the present time, and the eventual title isn't a done deal yet either, so the correct solution here is a delete, without prejudice against restoration once the station actually meets the requirements for a standalone article, not a merger with significant content or title retention. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to their CRTC submission, Industry Canada has granted them the call letters. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the source present in the article says that exactly nowhere. Secondly, the CKUR-FM call sign doesn't produce any search results in the IC call sign database, which it would if it had already been assigned to them. And thirdly, IC can't assign a call sign in advance of the CRTC approving the license — that's simply not how the process works. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it was in their submission to the CRTC:
"The proposed radio service is to be called Vancouver Urban Aboriginal Radio, with the call letters CKUR 106.3FM. CKUR call letters have been approved by Spectrum Management Operations Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada/Government of Canada." Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, firstly, that would be reflected in the Spectrum database. But it isn't. And secondly, call signs are not and cannot be approved before the license is approved, precisely because of the possibility that the license might get denied. The company can certainly file an inquiry to see if the desired call sign is available, which IC/Spectrum will certainly respond to with a yes or a no, but IC cannot and will not reserve the call sign for an as yet unapproved license. If an existing station puts in a request to change its existing call sign to CKUR before the Vancouver station finishes the paperwork necessary to actually secure it (which, again, it cannot have done on a pending license application, but can only initiate now that the license has been approved...and is still not a mere formality that can be finished in two minutes flat, but in fact takes weeks) then that other station will get dibs on it. So a station doesn't own the call sign just because its own self-published correspondence about itself says that — what that letter says can easily be an overheated misrepresentation of "Spectrum Management Operations has confirmed that the call sign is available". It doesn't own the call sign until the call sign is listed as assigned in the public Spectrum database, which as of today it is not. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"what that letter says can easily be an overheated misrepresentation of "Spectrum Management Operations has confirmed that the call sign is available". While that's interesting speculation it's groundless as the List of Available Callsign For Broadcasting Stations does not have CKUR listed. Why? Because those call letters have been reserved by new Vancouver station. Earlier you said "the eventual title isn't a done deal yet", now you concede that the call letters have been reserved so I'm glad we're making progress. The suggestion that the call letters won't be CKUR and that therefore do not merit being the name of an article lacks merit. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the call sign cannot be considered "reserved" until the public Spectrum Management database brings up an assigned record for it. Prior to the license approval, all the company can possibly have done is to submit an inquiry as to whether the call sign was available — they can have done nothing to initiate the process of reserving it until the CRTC application was approved. But that only happened three business days ago, and the process of reserving a call sign takes more than three days to complete and so it cannot have been completed yet. Again: a call sign is not "reserved" until the Spectrum database brings up an assigned record for it, which as of today the Spectrum database does not. I'm not making any speculation here at all; I know how the process works. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why isn't the call sign listed as available on this list then? List of Available Callsign For Broadcasting Stations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, and it doesn't matter. That document has no official status as proof of anything; it's just a convenience brochure that IC's SMO division makes available to prospective broadcasting applicants so they know what they're allowed to ask for. The only valid proof that a call sign has been locked in remains the existence of an assigned record for it in the SMO database. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rather than delete, I think it would be more constructive to redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace) until CKUR-FM begins testing or until a month or so before their launch date, in order to preserve the page history. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another good Bearcat nom; until it is confirmed to be at the very minimum testing, we have to assume it has no notability and we have no deadline to post an article about this; we can also assume that there will always be the usual CRTC license negotiation so that they can get on the air with what they say, but will also appeal to listeners. Nate • (chatter) 05:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Northern Native Broadcasting (Terrace), at least for now: Obviously it is too soon for this station to have an article, considering that they have until June 2019 to go on the air (though they tentatively plan to go on a year before then) and there isn't any presumption of notability for as-yet-unlaunched stations. That said, the station is mentioned in Northern Native Broadcasting's article — and most of the content of the CKUR-FM article, which at this point is pretty much all to say about the station, appears to in that article, anyway. Because of that and the fact that the station does appear to have picked a tentative call sign (even if it hasn't necessarily been formally assigned by Industry Canada yet — but from what I've noticed, it's pretty rare for a new Canadian radio station to have its call sign be known this early in the process), a redirect might actually be useful and valid in this case. (I wouldn't entirely object to deletion, either, but overall the circumstances here are a bit different from other AfDs over the past year about too-soon station articles.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Folk Show[edit]

The Folk Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage and both references are dead links. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only are the references dead links, they are to the web site of the radio station that broadcasts this show, so they wouldn't be independent sources even if we could see them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the rationale of deleting this article applies, then in my opinion it applies to the vast majority of radio programmes on Wikipedia. The articles regarding radio shows on BBC Radio 2 for example, have no greater depth nor could they be described as any more 'notable' than the article discussed. Also in my opinion any description in the context of a local radio show is also flawed, as The Folk Show has a wide listenership throughout the UK and overseas through it's transmission over the internet, and as such is important within the context of Celtic culture see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKcURVhoxY. It is part of the Category:Manx Radio programmes and also the Category:British music radio programmes, and as such fits the context of those categories. The article also conforms to the WikiProject Isle of Man. Harvey Milligan (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2017. (UTC)

• Retain. I have now repaired the links, so the references are now verifiable. I have also added citations which are independent of Manx Radio itself. This should answer Metropolitan90's argument for the page's deletion. I would also like to see the page retained for the reasons stated by Harvey Milligan: it is notable within the context of the Isle of Man, and it is a part of a wider series articles related to categories such as Category:Manx Radio programmes. I would hope that more pages will be created for this category in future. Manx James (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to know whether the book cited in the article now, The Nation's Station by Derek Winterbottom, discusses this radio show or whether it is just being cited to establish that Manx Radio is a commercial station. If the book discusses "The Folk Show", then it ought to be cited to support other information in the article, but if it doesn't discuss "The Folk Show", then it's not particularly significant as a source here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/response. The book was cited to establish that Manx Radio is a commercial station. It is, indeed, not particularly significant as a source in this article as a whole, but the statement seemed in need of a citation, and the book looked the best one available. Manx James (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know why so many people bother to try to write articles for Wikipedia, when such evident editorial arrogance clearly exists! Terry Dench 05:30 25 June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.49 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would suggest that thanks to the added links from Manx James the initial rationale for deletion (which in my opinion was tenuous at best) no longer applies. As stated previously, the article conforms to various criteria, one of which is the category: Manx Radio Programmes, which is currently being enhanced by further additions (see: Claare ny Gael). Harvey Milligan (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2017. (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Having been relisted and with the sole !vote being for deletion I'm going to treat this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Elson[edit]

Kevin Elson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While this producer has worked with significant acts, he fails WP:BIO with only passing mentions of him in articles that are about folks he's worked with. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The producer of an album is usually not notable for such. We would need more sources about Elson and to be able to write more text instead of just lists about him to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Bloodoff[edit]

Evan Bloodoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Still fails WP:NHOCKEY (and fairly certain it failed NHOCKEY in 2011 when it was recreated). Yosemiter (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: was actually re-created in 2013 when the player hit 100 games in AHL and ECHL when that was the criterion for minimum games in professional leagues at that time (I had 2011 in my head from when he started his pro career, a common time for the article's creator to have made articles). However, my nomination still stands; does not meet the current, stricter NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WTF? Delete: Ironically, his credentials today would have met the 2011 standards, but with what he'd achieved by 2011 (to wit, nothing), he wouldn't have then. Certainly doesn't meet the current, tighter standards. Ravenswing 04:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward weak keep - Neither NSPORTS nor GNG is an absolute rule. They are created to tell editors how to determine notability/importance of this person and his career. I searched for the news articles about this person. According to this article, the guy renewed his contract with the Florida Everblades hockey team. This shows that his notability is not temporary; it is sustained (proven substantial). Somehow, WP:WHYN and WP:NPF explain attempts to limit number of articles about low-profile persons, especially to prevent Wikipedia from being used as means of promotion. However, even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC); modified, 06:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC); partially struck, 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Notability is not temporary is only used if the person was ever actually notable. In the second recreation in 2013, he met the looser criteria NHOCKEY guideline. Since then, it was found that many hockey players who met that guideline did not meet WP:GNG and as such, NHOCKEY has become much stricter to weed out those that are not up to snuff. (read User talk:Dolovis for a list of deleted articles on the low-level player pages he created and one of the primary reasons NHOCKEY had to become stricter.) Yes, it is possible to still be notable and not meet the standards, but GNG is usually the go-to standard for notability. The source you brought up is about a player signing, something that is a run-of-the-mill press release from a local paper and what hockey would define as routine coverage which is usually not suitable as a source for proving notability in GNG (must have multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources). If your argument to keep is "even when the person fails GNG, the person may still be notable, and WP:V#Notability is already met", then my response is that notability (after GNG and WP:V) was never met to begin with. Yosemiter (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about delete per what you said... and WP:NPF? Creating an article about a non-notable person would violate not just GNG but also BLP, especially WP:NPF. Also, I bet it would be used as means of promotion, which is discouraged. --George Ho (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent)[edit]

Ancestry charts of the current British royal family (Saxon and Scottish descent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nom after failed PROD. Page was created as a spinoff of a now-deleted core page that was just an arbitrary collection of poorly referenced genealogical trivia regarding the British royal family.

This page begins with a false claim that the British royalty are somehow special in their ability to trace to antiquity (sic - the line given traces to medieval times, not antiquity, and millions of people can do this), then proceeds to show an arbitrary set of descents that have something to do with Anglo-Saxons (or not) and the current Queen (or not). It shows Elizabeth's descent from Alfred the Great through the pre-Conquest kings of England, but also another arbitrarily-chosen line through the counts of Flanders (ignoring thousands of other possible lines from Alfred that could be shown). It traces, for unknown reasons, the descent of the Scottish kings from the English royalty, that of Diana Spencer from a Elector of Brunswick, and that of an arbitrary medieval German prince, Philip of Swabia, from Alfred the Great.

The placement of (Anglo-)Saxon and Scot descents on a single page is a non-natural one. While one could argue that Elizabeth's descent from Alfred is central to her royal legitimacy, we already show this descent on Family tree of English and British monarchs and need not repeat it here also, nor would a merge improve that other page. As to the Scots, there is no legitimate rationale for tracing their descent from the founder of the English state, rather than from their own founder Kenneth MacAlpin (or even Fergus Mor). If we really are to have a royal genealogy page focusing on Elizabeth's claim to Scotland, it needs to focus on Scotland, and the best way to get there would be to TNT this one and start from scratch.

The page fails NOT:GENEALOGY, and lacks any kind of focus that would illuminate a specific topic. It has been flagged for a complete lack of sources for 5 years, with no attempts made to improve it. However curious one might find these descents to be, the current article's purpose is unclear and not well thought out, and because of the way it lumps together several independent genealogical phenomena, it can't really be improved because it isn't about any coherent topic. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot tell what this list is supposed to show. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The descent of the English (and British) crown is notable, but I am sure we have this elsewhere; likewise the descent of the Sottish crown. The other content is random and insignificant. For example, both Charles Prince of Wales and the late Princess Diana were descended from several illegitimate children of Charles II. That certain German princes are descended from children of Saxon kings is equally irrelevant. The royal families of Europe were heavily intermarried, so that it is possible to construct many pedigrees that might show all sorts of things to illustrate potential alternative descents, resulting from counter-factual rules of inheritance, but these are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you want non-notable counter-factual rules of inheritance giving potential alternative descents, we have that already too: Alternative successions of the English crown. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Monarchist equivalent of fancruft. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Seems to be Royalist special pleading. DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://growthluxuryhomes.com/our-team/. Non-Admin closure.

Philippe K Ziade[edit]

Philippe K Ziade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Heavy WP:PROMO tones with his name printed in bold 4 separate times on the page (in addition to issues with the style and tone of the article and the manner in which external links are used). I also wasn't impressed with the reliability of secondary sources used and needed to meet WP:BLP standards. Comatmebro (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article texting format have been updated and bold removed. Dear, (User:Comatmebro) can you contribute to the editing? Philippe Ziade is a very well known Real Estate entrepreneur and there's a second Philippe Ziade on Wikipedia creating confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs)

• Delete - non notable individual. Vanity page. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article texting format has been updated, restructured, links and references organized with adding of Dates, titles and sources. - Comment added by Rawad00 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Outer Plane. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Waste[edit]

Gray Waste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Fancruft referenced to primary sources, not an ounce of notability outside them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but to Outer Plane. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AFDcruft. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge to Outer Plane seems appropriate given that we have that article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Inner Plane. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Energy Plane[edit]

Positive Energy Plane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability, TTN (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references, no indication of notability, what's to merge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- completely unreferenced fancruft with no indication of even in-universe notability, let alone real-world. No suitable content to merge anywhere. Reyk _YO! 12:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inner Plane. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk)

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 Speedily deleted as a copyvio. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio University 2017 Student Protest[edit]

Ohio University 2017 Student Protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable localized student protest fails event notability guidlines WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE, etc. Heavy reliance on primary sources violates WP:NOR. GretLomborg (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - copyvio of this, report [1]. - TheMagnificentist 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EScreeningz[edit]

EScreeningz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. Furthermore, it is an orphan and seems to be an advertisement. Finally, the website's domain name cannot be reached. Snood1205 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and North America -- no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. A Train^talk 15:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Ramada Hotel drownings[edit]

1993 Ramada Hotel drownings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems notable and as the event took place well before wikipedia was founded, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really seem to apply as this article was written in 2011, 18 years after the event occurred which really doesn't seem newspapery to me. Furthermore, due to the three years of media coverage following the event, I'd say that it seems to be relatively notable. Snood1205 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wcquidditch's argument is persuasive: obviously there was ongoing news coverage, and from high-quality sources. Obviously some of the detail needed to be trimmed back -- I can't imagine what's pertinent to the subject about the number of siblings or that the father lost his job post-9/11 -- but I'm hardpressed to find merit in the nom's argument. If he objected to too much irrelevant biographical information, he could have trimmed that out, as I just did. Nor is there a single element of NOTNEWS that's violated here. Ravenswing 23:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of traffic reduction on environmental health risks[edit]

Effects of traffic reduction on environmental health risks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is an essay, and thus falls under WP:NOTESSAY. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Simply NOTESSAY under our basic standards. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and possibly WP:SYN. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is too much like an essay. It picks on specific primary research to report, and it does not have suitable content to rename or merge elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EH9 6632[edit]

EH9 6632 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no reliable evidence that this object even exists. There are a handful of social media entries and youTube videos, but that's about it. Even those could well be copied from list of largest cosmic structures which contains this object with no citation. Zero research published on such an object. I don't even know what the EH9 catalogue would be. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's absolutely no RS for this. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this has no mention on Google scholar, so it is very likely a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can only find this in unreliable sources; probably a hoax. Loooke (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find a single reliable source that mentions EH9 6632; this page is very linkly a hoax so, It is probably Caelum Supercluster which is the largest known supercluster with 910 million light-years. Lithopsian is right and also I saw some videos that mentions EH9 6632.

Ex:Size comparison of everything alternative version, 행성크기 우주 Universe in Perspective Update 2010 , Best size comparison universe 2016 Part.3 Lastpart and Best Ultimati Size comparison universe 2017 & Zoom Universe OUT

Maybe EH9 6632 exists and is outside of the Observable Universe (Diameter=93 billion ly) but it is part of the Entire Universe (Diameter=At least 552 billion ly? (13.799 ± 0.021 billion (age of the Universe) x 40 ly) (or maybe Infinite?)). Thank you— ~ ZaperatorYnossPro44⁷¹ ★ ^✉ / _CONTRIBS ~ 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sahara One[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Sahara One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (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/2017 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manslamming[edit]

Manslamming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable neologism. There appears to have been brief coverage (click-baity, not entirely serious, low quality journalism) of this concept but it is insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few sources that mention the term. Deli nk (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the above reasons. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It looks like "that's not a thing", as people say these days. Came and gone in a few days. "Manslamming" sounds like a good description of this kind of phony this-is-what-we-think-attracts-feminists-to-our-tampon-and-car-ads content that's been floating around the past couple of years. --Closeapple (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:NOTDICT, and lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by PTV[edit]

List of television programmes broadcast by PTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Pakistan[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital[edit]

List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nepal Television[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Nepal Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Zee TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Zee TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star Plus[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Star Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star One (Indian TV channel)[edit]

Star One (Indian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm mistaken – the only problem with this article would be a list of programmes. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• May I help you close this as withdrawn then, Binksternet? --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. Thanks in advance, George. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India)[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by SAB TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by SAB TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Raj TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Raj TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo[edit]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Life OK[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Life OK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (India)[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How is this NOTDIR if there are other articles with nearly the same content notably the American Disney Channel, American Cartoon Network, Freeform, ABC, etc.? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That question is in the vein of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but what we should be looking at is policy. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If we find a bunch of articles that are in violation of policy, the obvious solution is to correct them – all of them. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:Other stuff exists, which is why I didn't oppose. It was a genuine question. Are articles such as List of programs broadcast by Freeform and List of Disney Channel series/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel also in violation of NOTDIR? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are all in violation of NOTDIR. Ideally, the articles about broadcasters should have sections where they discuss the importance of notable shows that have been aired, for instance original shows that the broadcaster created, or special shows that were discussed in other media. A simple list of scheduled shows is not allowed. So in your example, the Disney Channel article should (and does) talk about the shows that were important. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that puts a damper on things because that's a lot of articles. NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, etc.... Should I get started or will you? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the AfDs I filed today, all related to the NOTDIR policy. I am only partway through the list found here, which should also get deleted if all its components are deleted. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight TV program templates, seven of them violating NOTDIR while the eighth is a container for the seven.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seven Network which includes discussion of eight related list articles.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Geo TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney XD
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by MTV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by GMA Network
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toonami
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hallmark Channel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Animax
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Science
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Fox Channel Asia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by MTV in Asia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by National Geographic
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nat Geo Wild
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (Southeast Asia)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Star World
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Channel V
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by TVB
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ViuTVsix
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Tokyo Broadcasting System
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Arirang TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Korean Broadcasting System
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by JTBC
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by &TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by BIG Magic
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Colors (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by DD National
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Life OK
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Raj TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by SAB TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Sahara One
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television (India)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Star Plus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Zee TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nepal Television
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Pakistan)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hum TV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Pakistan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Spacetoon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by PTV

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all mentioned I'm not going to vote in every single AfD here because this should be raised at ANI or another forum and separating all of these is just a hassle and inconvenience to anyone at AfD looking to decide on these 'list of's. Please consider a different mode of nominating these articles. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by DD National[edit]

List of programs broadcast by DD National (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Colors[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Colors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India)[edit]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by BIG Magic[edit]

List of programs broadcast by BIG Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by &TV[edit]

List of programmes broadcast by &TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by JTBC[edit]

List of programs broadcast by JTBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy kept per Special:PermaLink/787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per other articles - I believe you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Artw (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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